Land Law Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words

Land Law - Coursework Example These principles are found in the law of licences and the doctrine of proprietary estoppel. I. Remedies Prior to 1990 Prior to 1990 the law appeared to take two opposing positions relative to the extent to which licences created interests in land. The original position was stated in the early case of Thomas v Sorrell. In this case Lord Vaughan ruled that with respect to a licence, it neither passed nor modified â€Å"or transfers property in anything.†1 In other words, a licence merely functions to create a personal interest relative to the parties to the licence and as such does not operate to create an interest in land. The effect therefore is that the licence cannot be enforced against a third party. This principle of law prevailed and was indorsed by the House of Lords in King v David Allen and Sons, Billposting. In this case the House of Lords pointed held that a licence did not create a proprietary interest in land and as such could not function to be enforceable against a third party.2 Dixon explains however, that this unequivocal approach to licences was incapable of application across a board spectrum of circumstances. The fact is, licences could be put to use for any number of circumstances and could in some circumstances create interest in the land to which it applied.3 For instance, academics and legal scholars alike questioned whether or not it was unfair to oust an occupant under a licence from the property to which the licence applied, when the property changed hands.4 Lord Denning MR considered the circumstances in which it was inappropriate to classify an arrangement as a licence in the case of Errington v Errington. In this case Lord Denning MR departed from the orthodox position that a licence did not create a proprietary interest in land and could not bind third parties. In this case, the licence conferred on the plaintiff was determined to be binding on a wife how had inherited the property under a will. Her husband had granted the l icence to the plaintiff. Lord Denning reasoned that the licensee was at liberty to enforce the licence against the licensor for the period of the licence and there was no reason why that right could not be continued against third parties in â€Å"appropriate circumstances†.5 Appropriate circumstances would be situations in which the licensee, pursuant to the licence acted in ways that were â€Å"supported by an equity† as this would confer upon the licence a degree of proprietary interest. Moreover, an equity would be sustainable in circumstances where it would be unconscionable to ignore the rights created by the licence.6 Lord Dennings ruling and reasoning can be found in subsequent cases. For example in Crabb v Arun DC [1976] if was held if the court finds that an equity exists, it will ensure that the parties abide by the licence to the extent that it reflects the relevant facts and circumstances of the case.7 Lord Denning explained that: Short of an actual promise , if he by his words or conduct, so behaves as to lead another to believe that he will not insist on his strict legal rights – knowing or intending that the other will act on that belief – and he does so act, that again will raise an equity in favour of the other, and it is for a court of equity to say in what way the equity may be satisfied.8 The acquisition of an equity under a licence was further explained in Taylor Fashions v Liverpool Trustees. I this case it was held that

Should Alcohol Sales Be Allowed at College Sporting Events Essay

Should Alcohol Sales Be Allowed at College Sporting Events - Essay Example I acknowledge that beer and chips are a traditional part of any spectator sport activity, which is why our university has been quite lenient over the years regarding the entry of alcohol into the stadiums and sports arenas. As a student body, we know the risks involved in binge drinking and we acknowledge that the university authorities constantly remind us that we must know how to place the alcohol â€Å"in the belly and not in the brain†. But there will always be students who overstep the bounds and get drunk either before, during, or after the game. It is important that you understand that the recent violent actions of some students have nothing to do with the sale of alcohol at the college sporting events. The sale of alcohol is a necessary evil when it comes to keeping a college or university sports program alive. While the budget during the year for the sport is set aside by the board of trustees of the school, that does not mean that the amount set aside will be suffici ent enough to cover all of the necessary expenses that the team will incur during the year. The coaches already admitted that the revenue from alcohol sales helps to keep the team in active play. The alcohol sales help to augment the shortage in the budget. While it is true that there is a tendency among the students to abuse alcohol at the sporting venues, that is not to say that all of those who drink excessively will be prone to acts of violence. The same goes for tailgating parties that occur prior to the events. Alcohol is one of the main drinks served at such parties which occur prior to the game. In this situation, the alcohol serves as a bonding instrument for the students, who come together pre-game in order to celebrate and prime themselves for the game ahead. Although alcohol is abundant at tailgating parties, there has never been any conclusive evidence to prove that the alcohol consumed by the spectators pre-game has anything to do with their mindset and actions once th ey enter the stadium. Spectator violence is something that usually happens in Europe but only began to emerge in the United States. Not all of the spectator violence is alcohol related. There are other ways and means that opposing teams can get on each other's nerves or egg each other on. Acts as simple as taunting, teasing, gesturing, destruction of public property, and physical challenges can all lead to spectator violence. But that does not necessarily mean that alcohol is to blame for the actions of the students. There are other reasons, such as being high on illegal drugs, that contribute to the problem of spectator violence. To automatically assume that excessive alcohol intake by the students is the primary cause of violence means that you are barking up the wrong tree. Remember that there is a high police profile at these stadiums during these events due to security concerns. These law enforcers are the first line of defense when it comes to silencing a drunk spectator. Gran ted that the police cannot guard every student that enters the venue. But the guards at the gate can definitely tell who is entering intoxicated. In which case, a Breathalyzer test can automatically be administered in order to prevent the outbreak of misunderstanding and violence at the venue. The drinking starts long before the students enter the venue. Therefore, the students who try to enter the venue drunk can and should be denied entry until the sober up. Keep in mind that restricting alcoholic intake at the sports venue just means that the students will get their alcohol fix before, during, and after the game in another manner. A manner that will most likely cause spectator violen