Doctrine of part performance when applied to a lease?

[zem...@yahoo.com]

following on from the statute of frauds in 1677 ,when it was not
possible to tell from an oral agreement what was what for each party
then came s40 of the LPA 1925.
But is the statute of frauds still applicable or has it been eroded by
time ?

The doctrine of part performance then applies to a oral agreement .
is it correct to say that an oral contract for a lease is not void
because of the absence of a written agreement or some kind of
notes ,it is still a valid contract .
But in the case of a dispute between the parties the courts will not
enforce it.
which seems reasonable enough as nobody can be sure some years later
what was orally agreed between the parties .apart from the paying the
rent and using a property as a brothel are there any other issues that
could be enforced by law ?in view of an oral agreement .

i cant figure out this doctrine of part performance but it does appear
to be in force in many countries .

some texts say a oral contract with nothing in writing is a void
contract .
but just how voided is it ?if in fact this is the case here ?

[Chris R]

>
>
> wrote in message
> news:b2c22988-2f11-4ba2...@g30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com...

In English law the only part of the Statute of Frauds that remains in force
relates to guarantees. The other provisions have been repealed and replaced
by other provisions. In relation to land contracts that means section 2 of
the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, which replaced
section 40 LPA 1925. It abolished the part performance exception and
rendered unwritten contracts void, rather than unenforceable.

You seem to have a particular set of facts in mind, but it is far from
obvious from your post what they are or whether you are looking at the right
points of law.
--
Chris R

========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======

[zem...@yahoo.com]

thanks for usual good reply, just one thing, although you say the s40
of the LPA 1925 was repealed in LPA 1989 s.2 ,misc prov , i
believe ,that where the agreement was entered into before Sept 1989
the provisions of s40 of the LPA 1925 still apply to the contract (as
to which ,see Halsbury (4th edition) para .29,note 3).
would you say that is correct ?
thanks

[Andrew McGee]

<zem...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d35b12b9-6d07-45e6...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...

Yes that is correct.

Remember also that it is possible to have a purely oral lease where the
lease is for not more than three years. Also, if tenant goes into occupation
and pays rent there is at common law a periodic tenancy, the period being
the same as the rent interval. It does not at all follow that the terms of
the tenancy are the same as those of the purported but void written lease;

It is difficult to know exactly which of these points is relevant, but my
experience is that the rules on part performance before 1989 featured more
in exam papers than in practice.

Andrew McGee

[Chris R]

>
>
> wrote in message
> news:d35b12b9-6d07-45e6...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>

You are still hoping to enforce an oral contract over 20 years old? That
just reinforces my feeling that you are looking at the wrong law. You need
to explain the problem to get relevant advice.

[Chris R]

>
>
> "Andrew McGee" wrote in message
> news:l8GdnaasHO3DCP_T...@bt.com...

But if what we are discussing is a lease or tenancy, rather than a contract
to create one, then section 2 (or old section 40) is not relevant - and of
course a contract for the creation of a lease of up to three years is
excluded from section 2 anyway (section 2(5)(a)). Section 54 LPA 1925
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/15-16/20/section/54 might be. Given
that any fixed period of up to three years must have expired, what we have
is a periodic tenancy or tenancy at will.

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Chris R" <inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> wrote in message
news:6qGdnRU_0eA-Lv_T...@brightview.co.uk...

>
>>
>>
>> wrote in message
>> news:d35b12b9-6d07-45e6...@y4g2000vbx.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> thanks for usual good reply, just one thing, although you say the s40
>> of the LPA 1925 was repealed in LPA 1989 s.2 ,misc prov , i
>> believe ,that where the agreement was entered into before Sept 1989
>> the provisions of s40 of the LPA 1925 still apply to the contract (as
>> to which ,see Halsbury (4th edition) para .29,note 3).
>> would you say that is correct ?
>> thanks
>
> You are still hoping to enforce an oral contract over 20 years old? That
> just reinforces my feeling that you are looking at the wrong law. You need
> to explain the problem to get relevant advice.
> --
> Chris R

The classic example here is where a landowner allows someone to do building
work (or even just deliver materials) on a property which is part of a lease
or expected to be so.

Clearly no one would build on someone else's land without the expectation of
being able to occupy it and conversely no land owner would allow builders on
his land unless and agreement was anticipated.

[Chris R]

> > You are still hoping to enforce an oral contract over 20 years old? That
> > just reinforces my feeling that you are looking at the wrong law. You
> > need
> > to explain the problem to get relevant advice.
> > --
> > Chris R
>
> The classic example here is where a landowner allows someone to do
> building
> work (or even just deliver materials) on a property which is part of a
> lease
> or expected to be so.
>
> Clearly no one would build on someone else's land without the expectation
> of
> being able to occupy it and conversely no land owner would allow builders
> on
> his land unless and agreement was anticipated.
>

In which case the limitation period would have expired years ago. In your
example you would not wait 22 years and then attempt to enforce the
contract. You would make a claim for unjust enrichment or quantum meruit as
soon as the landlord failed to grant the lease, or pre-section 2 you might
have had a claim for breach of contract, but it would be time barred six
years from the breach.

[zem...@yahoo.com]

heres section 40

************************************************************

CONTRACTS FOR SALE, ETC, OF LAND TO BE IN WRITING

Contracts for sale, etc, of land to be in writing

40.--

(1) No action may be brought upon any contract for the sale or
other disposition of land or any interest in land, unless the
agreement upon which such action is brought, or some memorandum or
note thereof, is in writing, and signed by the party to be charged or
by some other person thereunto by him lawfully authorised.

(2) This section applies to contracts whether made before or
after the commencement of this Act and does not affect the law
relating to part performance, or sales by the court.

[REPEALED: See now Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
section 2 and Electronic Communications Act 2000]

******************************************************************************

so what exactly does it cover ? the ;etc; is wide open to
interpretation i guess and could be anything

[Chris R]

>
>
> wrote in message
> news:be6a6fe1-18f0-406a...@fi7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Nothing. It's been repealed.