Law of Property Assessment Coursework: Land Law Problem Questions

Part A

In April 2024, Kyle purchased Greenacre from Kana. Greenacre consisted of a large house with a substantial garden and a swimming pool. Kyle sought the advice of a solicitor but felt the consultation fee was too expensive, so she decided to arrange the conveyance privately.

When she moved in, she realised that Kana removed the following items from Greenacre.

A large observation balloon, which floated about 40 metres above the swimming pool. The balloon provided spectacular views over Greenacre as well as the surrounding countryside in all directions. The balloon had been accessed by a rope ladder and serviced by electricity and water supplies.
The swimming pool diving board.
All the carpets in the house, including carpet tiles which had been glued to the floor in the downstairs bathroom; and
A 72-inch plasma TV which had rested on a tailor-made, wall-mounted bracket in the underground cinema room.

Last month, a local recreation (boxing) club approached Kyle to buy the garden and convert it to a boxing venue. They offered her £100,000 to Kyle which he agreed to. She and the head paint-baller, Kim, the solicitor representing the boxing club had shaken hands on the deal and to confirm their arrangement. Kim had written on the back of an old envelope:

‘This confirms what we agreed on 30th September 2024.’

Both Kyle and Kim both signed the back of the envelope. The paint-ballers have since spent £40,000 digging trenches and erecting shooting platforms but now Kyle has decided that he would rather not have a lot of noisy people running around and shouting on Sunday mornings.

Advise Kyle, critically analysing the legal issues raised by these events and referring to legal principles, case law and statute as appropriate.

Part B

Danielle owns a two-bedroom house in Woodley near West End College. She decides to help her son, Claude, out of his current financial difficulties by letting him use the house to raise income. She gives him a ten-year licence of the house. Claude advertises the house on the notice board in the College bookshop. Lauren and Ian, who are about to start the second year of their fashion degree, sign identical ‘licence’ agreements to occupy the house. The agreement, which is stated to be for ‘two years or until the completion of your degree programme’, contains the following provisions:

a) Half of the total monthly licence fee of £2,000 is payable on the first day of each month;

b) Claude’s son, Mick, may use the sofa bed in the lounge to stay overnight whenever he has to work late in the city.

c) Claude is to retain a set of keys to the house.

d) Claude will arrange for clean towels and bed linen to be delivered to the house once a week.

Claude does not realise that Lauren and Ian are a couple and assumes that they will occupy different bedrooms. In fact, they share the same room. Before signing the agreement, Lauren asks Claude how often Mick is likely to need to use the sofa bed and why he (Claude) needs to retain a set of keys. Claude says that on the rare occasions that Mick would need to stay he would always ask Lauren and Ian first. He also explains that he is retaining a set of keys for the house just in case there is some domestic emergency.

Critically analyse, giving reasons, whether Claude has created a lease or a licence in favour of Lauren and Ian?

Expert Answers on Above Law of Property Coursework

Greenacre: Removal of items – Fixtures versus Chattels

The analysis of the case using IRAC methodology is performed as follows:
Issue: The key issue identified in the case is whether the removed items were fixtures such as part of the land or chattels such as personal property.
Rule: The rule that is considered for analysis is Holland v Godgson (1972). The legal test that will be carried out are the degree of annexation and purpose of annexation.
Application: The observation balloon is considered as a chattel because it floats and is not permanently fixed, and it has limited physical annexation. Diving board is a fixture because it is attached to the swimming pool. The loose carpets were chattels while the glued carpet tiles are fixtures because of permanence. TV is chattel whereas bracket is fixture.
Conclusion: Kana removed the carpet tiles, wall bracket and diving board which is unlawful.

Sale of Garden to boxing club

Issue: The main issue is whether the agreement for sale of land is considered as legally binding.
Rule: The law applicable in the case is section 2 of the law of Property Act 1989. The section states that the contract must be in writing, and the agreed terms must be expressly indicated and signed by both the parties.
Application: The most important terms of the contract are not mentioned in the envelope such as price, land description etc.
Conclusion: As the terms are not expressly indicated, the contract is not enforceable.

Boxing club expenditure

Issue: The issue in the given case of boxing club is proprietary estoppel.
Rule: This specific case law selected for analysis is Thorner v Major. The requirements that will be assessed are assurance, reliance and detriment.
Application: The Assurance was informal via handshake and a note, and the amount of 40000 that was spent was based on reliance.
Conclusion: It is likely that the court may provide equitable relief or compensation considering the statutory non compliance.

Lease or licence

Issue: The issue is whether Lauren and Ian have a lease or a licence.
Rule: The legal tests that are considered are from the case Street v Mountford which states that the existence of lease is confirmed when there is exclusive possession, for a term, and at a particular rent. Levels are irrelevant.
Application: In the given case scenario, Lauren and Ias occupied the whole house, and the occasional use by Mick is vague and unlikely to be genuine. With respect to retention of keys during emergencies, it does not defeat the exclusive position. The services like linen and towels are considered as minor services that are consistent with the lease, while the term is 2 years or completion which is sufficiently certain.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that the arrangement fulfils the criteria for a lease. Lauren and Ian are tenants and it is a lease not a licence.

This model answer is reviewed by Michael Harper, a law expert specialises in land law case analysis.
Disclaimer: This answer is a model for study and reference purposes only. Use it for your learning to do your assignment on your own. Please do not submit it as your own work.

Do You Need Full Answer With References?

Law coursework involving the application of IRAC requires good understanding of the methodology, researching abilities to find case laws and good application skills. The above model answers are written in brief and if you need detailed answers, get in touch with our coursework writing service team to get professional guidance and support in completing your law coursework perfectly.