Disposition Of Land Agreement
The Yeates case is a case of negative possession. The applicants asked the Chancellor of the Supreme Land to be registered as the owner of a small strip of land and claimed that they had acquired the property through the possession of harmful property. The respondents in the case objected to the application for safe detention and the dispute was referred to a warrant. During the oral proceedings, it became apparent that the complainants and respondents were meeting on the ground to discuss the issue. It was decided between the parties prior to the hearing that the respondents would close part of the land in question and leave the applicants a small portion of the land south of the fence. The Warrant Officer found that the applicants had acquired ownership of the soil strip by prejudicial property, but that the oral compromise agreement between the parties was a legally binding contract, the register would not be modified to reflect the change in ownership of the land. The complainants appealed the decision of the adjudicators, since the compromise agreement is not a valid contract, since a sale contract or other land provision must be written under section 2, paragraph 1, of the Property Act (Various Provisions) of 1989. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. A contract of sale or other provision relating to participation in the land can only be concluded in writing and by the inclusion in each document of all the conditions expressly agreed by the parties in a document or in which contracts are exchanged. These are the requirements of Section 2 (1) of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1989. This rule has been challenged in the recent case of Yeates and another v line and another [2012] All ER (D) 140 (Nov).
The Court held that an agreement under Section 2 (1) of the Act must be entered into in writing if it has a purpose of alienation and is handled in more than a trivial amount. In this case, the amount of land thrown away was trivial and the purpose of the agreement was not to cede the country, but to compromise the borders. Therefore, although the agreement had a desuuring effect, the Court found that the verbal agreement between the parties was a valid contract. The employee of the holding company may only be exempt from the repayment of the loan when the parties complete the entire share sale agreement. Subject to the share sale agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “share sale agreement”) of 01 July 2008 between Shengqu and the holding company employee, Shengqu or a third party appointed by Shengqu, it has the exclusive option of obtaining all shares of the holding company in Shanghai Shulong at any time. Presents LBHI cash deposits on accounts and pledges jp Morgan (including its related companies, “JPM”) in accordance with paragraph 6, point b), of the collateral disposition agreement (CDA) with JPM, effective March 31, 2010. The Company fulfilled its obligations under the August 4, 2008 disposition contract between the purchaser and the company.
