One for the legal eagles - forcing the sale of a jointly owned house

[MNW67]

Builders v Stuart (1992)
Bracken v Billinghurst (2003)

Two more obscure cases about cheques.

Keep Googling!

 

[motorbiking]

Are you suggesting that accepting an offer in full and final settlement, with a formal acknowledgment of such is not binding?

yes or no?

 

[MNW67]

Are you suggesting that accepting an offer in full and final settlement, with a formal acknowledgment of such is not binding?

yes or no?

Yes, I am suggesting that it is not always binding:

AI Overview

A statement of "full and final settlement" alone isn't always binding because the creditor may not have received sufficient consideration for accepting a lesser amount than the full debt, a principle from the case Foakes v Beer. However, the settlement can become legally binding if the debtor provides additional consideration, such as paying early, paying in a different currency, paying at a different location, or if the doctrine of promissory estoppel applies.

 

[MNW67]

Are you suggesting that accepting an offer in full and final settlement, with a formal acknowledgment of such is not binding?

yes or no?

I hope we sort it out this evening because we have a hectic period starting tomorrow and I probably won't be able to post much!

 

[motorbiking]

I hope we sort it out this evening because we have a hectic period starting tomorrow and I probably won't be able to post much!

Go back to what SS stated and why F v B is irrelevant.

I was left to pay the mortgage while she lived in it rent free without making any payments. It got to the point where I could not pay for me and the house I was not enjoying, so I had to give up. The RBS (mortgage co.) basically were chasing me for in excess of £33K.

I did not want to face bankruptcy, but the RBS were unrepentent. They wanted their money back from me and me alone, despite the fact that me & my ex had signed the agreement together, "jointly and severally".

I scraped together as much as I could with the help of family (a couple of grand I believe) and told the RBS (via my solicitor) that this was all I could offer them in full and final settlement of my debt and if they would not accept it, I would declare myself bankrupt. Thankfully, they accepted and I was freed from the debt.

Can you not see offer, consideration and acceptance?

 

[blup]

when two people get married they are joined as one, not just in love and happiness, but everything they own, irrelevant of who pays what.

Did you know that when you got married?

 

[MNW67]

Go back to what SS stated and why F v B is irrelevant.


Can you not see offer, consideration and acceptance?

No. I did consider that point before my original post. But a threat to go bankrupt if an offer is not accepted would not count as fresh consideration. I would, however, accept that it might amount to being an act of detriment in regard to promissory estoppel.

 

[motorbiking]

Did you know that when you got married?

I didn't actually put too much thought into it. We were thinking of having kids and I was a bit old fashioned about kids outside wedlock. Of course it seems ridiculous now. My marriage ended because the two people who met in their early 20s were very different in their late 40s.

 

[motorbiking]

No. I did consider that point before my original post. But a threat to go bankrupt if an offer is not accepted would not count as fresh consideration. I would, however, accept that it might amount to being an act of detriment in regard to promissory estoppel.

he paid a bunch of money now rather than later.

 

[MNW67]

he paid a bunch of money now rather than later.

That has been found not to be fresh consideration. The money was due on demand at an earlier date. It is already late. It is not like a debt payable in future is being brought forward.

 

[MNW67]

I always enjoyed estoppel. It is used quite a lot in Land Law, which was always one of my favourite areas.

 

[Deleted member 317777]

I always enjoyed estoppel. It is used quite a lot in Land Law, which was always one of my favourite areas.

Hot air anyone….

This is why the GD gets so much ridicule.

 

[MNW67]

Hot air anyone….

This is why the GD gets so much ridicule.

OMG!!!

Estoppel is a beautiful concept. It allows the courts to use the principle of equity to mitigate the harshness of the law where somebody has acted to their detriment based on the lies of the other party. That's probably why I like it. It's about being nice!

 

[motorbiking]

I always enjoyed estoppel. It is used quite a lot in Land Law, which was always one of my favourite areas.

OMG!!!

Estoppel is a beautiful concept. It allows the courts to use the principle of equity to mitigate the harshness of the law where somebody has acted to their detriment based on the lies of the other party.

For example.

Here is a bunch of money that I owe and you are struggling to get from me in exchange for you accepting it as a full and final settlement. Which is binding, because I have acted against my interest on a promise from you to not take it further.

Looks like MNW found some old text books

 

[motorbiking]

Anyway back to the OP, none of this is relevant, because such an offer will damage his credit rating.