澳洲音乐学论文代写:土地所有权

澳洲音乐学论文代写:土地所有权

斯坦拥有托伦斯的所有权。根据托伦斯体系,根据1900年新南威尔士州不动产法,他是这块土地的所有者。因此,想要买卖房产的人必须与斯坦协调。现在要解决的第一个问题是汤姆是否可以把土地卖给斯坦,考虑到他和斯坦签订了一份回购协议。汤姆和斯坦有协议吗?是的,他有。根据《物业转易法》第54A条,合同已经签订,报价和接受的要素都已经存在。这项协议反映出斯坦打算在这处房产被用于汤姆的生意之后买下它。汤姆打算在该物业被用于特定业务后出售该物业,此意向已在回购协议中记录。根据高等法院在master v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 (Carter, & Peden, 2003)中对合同使用的理解,这里有一个法律意图和一个受合同约束条款。既然签订了这样的协议,汤姆决定把财产卖给别人就违反了协议。原协议清晰地体现了回购意向,体现为回购协议。

澳洲音乐学论文代写:土地所有权
销售的一个属性,所有者或供应商可能没有披露他们知道的一切属性,如继续打算开发土地价值等。然而,在这种立法如竞争和消费者行为或公平贸易法案,可以说,所有者或供应商必须确保买方不是给事业带来一个行为欺诈或欺骗购买(麦肯德里克,2012)。斯坦把房子卖给汤姆的时候很清楚回购协议。没有欺骗。汤姆应该遵守他和斯坦之间的协议,但是自从他发现罗恩有一个更好的快速致富的计划,他和罗恩签订了协议,然后为了生意的目的把财产卖给了罗恩,他就违反了合同。然而,他没有欺骗罗恩。他和斯坦之间的回购协议已经告诉了罗恩。然而,罗恩履行这一协议的意图只是口头上的。当斯坦说他想购买协议时,罗恩说斯坦和汤姆共享的合同对他没有约束力。

澳洲音乐学论文代写:土地所有权

Stan owns what is called the Torrens title. According to the Torrens system he is then the owner of the land, under the Real Property Act 1900 NSW. People wishing to buy and sell the property must hence coordinate with Stan. Now the first issue to be addressed is of whether Tom can sell the land to Stan, considering that he had a contractual agreement drawn with a re-purchase agreement. Does Tom have an agreement with Stan? Yes, he does. Under the Section 54A Conveyancing Act a contract has been signed, elements of offer and acceptance are present. The agreement reflects the intention of Stan to buy the property once it has been used for Tom’s business. Tom’s intention to sell the property once the property has been used for the specific business has been recorded in the re-purchase agreement. A legal intention, and a subject to contract clause is present here which is the leading decision when it comes to understanding contract use according to High Court in Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353 (Carter, & Peden, 2003). Now since such an agreement was signed, Tom’s decision to sell the property to another is in breach of the agreement. The original agreement clearly shows the repurchase intention reflected as a repurchase agreement.

澳洲音乐学论文代写:土地所有权
In the selling of a property, the owner or the vendor might not have to disclose everything they know about a property, such as a continuing intention to develop the land value etc. However, under such legislation such as the Competition & Consumer Act or the Fair Trading Act, it can be said that the owner or the vendor must ensure that the purchaser is not given a cause to bring an act of misrepresentation or deceit in the purchase (McKendrick, 2012). Now Stan when selling the property to Tom was clear about the repurchase agreement. There was no deceit involved. Tom should have honored the agreement he had with Stan, however since he discovered a much better quick rich scheme with Ron with who he enters into an agreement with and hence sells the property to Ron for the purpose of the business, he has breached contract. However, he has not deceived Ron. The re-purchase agreement that he shared with Stan has been stated to Ron. However, the intention of Ron to honour this agreement was only verbal. When Stan states he wants to purchase the agreement, Ron states that the contract Stan and Tom share does not bind him.

COPYRIGHT © ADVANCED THESIS ALL RIGHTS RESERVED 高阶澳洲论文代写 | OUR SERVICES ARE TO BE USED FOR RESEARCH AND REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY