Coursework Answer Guidelines: Fixtures and Fittings, Co-ownership

By submitting your coursework answer, you are confirming that your effort is an individual effort, entirely your own work and that you have not engaged in bad academic practice and/or an academic offence.

All students should note that any assessment is liable to be subject to similarity testing, which will include being run through Turnitin software.

If, despite this warning, you should go ahead and commit bad academic practice and/or an academic offence, an adverse finding in a University hearing becomes a matter that you must report to the professional bodies. Failure to report will have an impact on your legal career.

Instructions:

Answer ALLparts of the question.

The word limit for all parts together is 2000(Two Thousand) words (NOT including footnotes/bibliography). You may divide this total wordcount between the 4 parts as you see fit.

Before starting work on your coursework, you MUSTread the accompanying Guidance and listen to the Panopto podcasts on the Alphabet of Mistakes!

In Spring 2020, two couples: Sanjeev and Meera (Couple A) and Kulvinder and Nina (Couple B) decided to leave London and look for somewhere in the country. They had an idea that they would buy a hotel together as a business venture and also as somewhere to live. Couple A were experienced as hotel managers, while Couple B were restaurateurs. As such, they looked for an ideal property with enough space for both couples to share as well as having rooms for paying guests. They arranged to view an old manor house in the Lake District, which cost £1,000,000 and appeared to meet their needs.

On viewing the hotel prior to purchase, both couples thought that the ornamental fireplaces, glass chandeliers and stained glass windows it contained all combined to give character to the building. There was also an ornate garden with many statues and giant palms in plant pots in it, which both couples thought would make a nice place to relax in the evenings. There was also a large annexe in which there was gym equipment and a jacuzzi. As both couples were impressed by the property, they agreed to buy the hotel and instructed solicitors to carry out the conveyancing. When they obtained the keys and prepared to move in, they discovered that all the items they had viewed (fireplaces, chandeliers, stained glass windows, statues and plant pots, gym equipment and jacuzzi) had been taken away (presumably by the seller) and were missing.

At the time the hotel was purchased, the couples were not able to make the same financial contribution towards the purchase price. Couple A (Sanjeev and Meera), whose careers were more successful, together put in £600,000. Couple B (Kulvinder and Nina) contributed the remaining £400,000 necessary to reach the purchase price. Both couples were concerned that they should be able to inherit from their respective spouses, should anything happen to them, but did not wish their contribution to become the property of the other couple by operation of any legal rule applicable. At the time of the conveyance, the solicitor drafting the deed used this phrase: “to Sanjeev, Meera, Kulvinder and Nina as joint tenants in equity”.

The parties thought nothing of it and continued to run their business for a year until Nina developed cancer. Knowing that her prognosis was gloomy, Nina wrote a will in which she stated that she wanted her share in the hotel to go to Kulvinder. Sanjeev and Meera both acted as witnesses to the will.