LAND LAW

Land Law

[Name of the institute]Land Law

Answer to Question Number One

Part A

In this case Edward is able to get forfeit. As the contract that is initially formed between James and Brad possesses a forfeit clause. The agreement that was between Brad and James included the certain requirements which are as follows;

To pay rent of £550.00 per calendar month

To keep the property in good repair

Not to assign the lease without the consent of the landlord

Forfeiture clause means that if the lessee does not abide by the given provisions of the agreement then he or she losses the right on asset and the right on asset or property automatically shifts to the lessor. In this case, James did not fulfil the requirements. James assigned the lease to Ravi without the permission of Brad. This is the violation of one of the provisions of the agreement so according to the forfeiture clause the title of the property automatically shifts towards Brad. Now, Brad can do whatever he wants with the property. So, Brad sold freehold reversion to Edward. Now the property is of Edward so it is his right to achieve forfeiture. In order to achieve forfeiture Edward can take following steps (Stephen 2001, 24):

First of all Edward should make an attempt to reach to a settlement outside the court setting. Edward can do this by talking to Ravi and James. If they do not agree to reach to the settlement then Edward should file the complaint in court. For that purpose, Edward needs to have complete documentation to shows that the property is now is his not of Brad. Edward may have to appear in court for hearing. He is also to present evidence in terms of documentation. He can also bring Brad in court. By this means, Edward can achieve forfeiture.

Part B

In this case, Ravi is in position that is uninformed of what is happening. He thinks that James lease him this property but the fact is that originally the property was of Brad and Brad lease the property to James. When Edward would contact him to either vacant the place or to continue the lease with him then it would clear the situation to Ravi. Now we have to see that in what position Ravi stands if we consider the old agreement is still in place that requires the lessee to pay a monthly rent, to keep the property in good condition and to do not lease it to any other party without the consent then in this case just like James, Ravi is also violating the provisions of this agreement as this agreement requires to pay monthly rent and Ravi did not pay the rent from past four months. So, legally and in a straight way, Ravi is not in a position to obtain the possession of the property (Wendell 2006, 124). However, there are some possible actions that he can take. First of all he can file a complaint against James that he tried to lease a property ...