IMPLICATION OF LAWS

Implication of Laws

Implication of Laws

According to Mary, if Amy is to establish any interest in the property she must bring herself within one of the following categories. First she must show that the legal owner has made an express promise to her that she should have an interest and that she has relied on that promise to her detriment, as in Eves v Eves , Grant v Edwards and Babick v Thompson . Ahmed's words of assurance "in the near future when we marry the house will be yours" count for this purpose.

The payment of the decoration might have been relevant if the couple had been married. There is every chance that Amy could have relied on s37 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Act 1970 to establish a beneficial interest by way of improvement expenditure. However, this is not the case, and it is doubtful whether contributing to the costs of improving a house that is already purchased can, without any agreement to the contrary, give rise to an equitable interest (Bank of India v Mody ). Ahmed had already purchased the house before she moved in however the most important question to ask is 'Whether knowingly or unknowingly , he has allowed or encouraged another to assume to his detriment'(Tailors Fashion Ltd v Liverpool Trustees Co Ltd ).

Claimant must show that he has changed his position in reliance on the representation made by the owner of the land according to the case of Re Basham . This can be physical labour towards renovation of the home as in Eves v Eves , so Amy redesigning interior can count for this purpose.

There must also be a casual link between the representation and the change of positions. There is no casual link between Amy leaving her career interests and ...