QUESTION ONE
Purchase due diligence should be observed at all time. The safest way to purchase
property is to ensure all items you require or left in the property should be included in the sale of
contract before signing of the agreement. Few remedies exist for Frances after she entered into
contract for sale since the property was not as she expected. It lacked relevant features such as
title which had not been outlined in the contract. 15 At the end of the process, there is a high
chance that the potential legal costs will outweigh the typical value of the item. Though she may
have options to be remedied, the cost of enforcing them will be significant than the cost she
might have incurred while making appropriate investigations before entering into the contract for
sale. After deciding on the main practical scenarios whereby the property meets the requirements
such as budget, size and location, Frances should have conducted further due diligence. 16 Her
lawyer might have helped her in some of the matters discussed above. Severing of the land by
Kevin and Alan does not prevent the land wooden shed from forming part of the land while it
remains fixed as demonstrated from their contractual agreements.
Frances induced a sale by fraudulent representation and hence she acquired a voidable
title from Allan since the wooden shed was only adjacent to Alan’s compound and not under his
land. Alan has the absolute authority to vacate the voidable possession by Frances at his option,
upon discovery of the fraud. Furthermore, Alan has the authority to transfer title of the good to a
bona fide purchaser (Kelvin) without notifying Frances of the equity outstanding. However, Alan
had no right to possess the wooden shed since he is guilty of trespass. 16He is only the finder of
the wooden shed on land belonging to someone else (adjacent compound), and hence he is
entitled to possession of the wooden shed above everyone else except the true owner. Alan had
the right to claim ownership and exercise control on the wooden shed.
From the principle of the common law, individual cannot pass better title than she has
and the buyer shall not get better title than that of the seller. Frances purchased the property
without notice of defects from the title of the seller.17Given the fact that Alan has indicated to be
the rightful owner of the wooden shed and hence should be estopped from denying such
representations if Alan resells it to a bona fide buyer (Frances) without notice of the true owner
rights. In the context of bailment, Kelvin held rightful temporary possession of the wooden shed
other than Alan, who is the rightful owner. Kelvin is the bailer since he entrusted his property
into the hands of Alan (Bailee). The bailment arrangement was made for a purpose of awaiting
Kelvin to come later on and pick it up with a trailer. It was fully agreed by the parties. The
process involved transfer of custody only, not ownership. Therefore, Kelvin is entitled to sue
Alan for misrepresentations and breach of contract that led to loss to Frances and Kelvin.
