Collings v Lee (Lionel Smith, 2 Nov 2000)

Of course it's just a tree. What does it look like ?

RDG online
Restitution Discussion Group Archives

Restitution
front page

What's new?

Another tree!

Archive front page

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2007

2006

2008

2009

Another tree!

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

Sender:	Lionel Smith
Date:	Thu, 2 Nov 2000 09:10:23 -0500
Re:	Collings v Lee

Charles quoted from Collings v Lee:

'The rationale of the principle [stated by Millett J], as it applies to a transfer of property, is that, even where the transfer is obtained by fraudulent misrepresentation, the transferor nevertheless intends that the whole legal and beneficial ownership in the property shall pass to the transferee. But that was not this case. [Mrs C] did not intend to transfer the property to [Lee] and ... did not intend to transfer it for no consideration. [Lee] acquired the property without [her] knowledge and consent and in breach of his fiduciary duty to her.'

There could be something in this. I think the cases show that at least with respect to money, even legal title does not pass if the mistake is as to the identity of the payee. Here if the register is conclusive as to legal title you might nonetheless mirror the common law principle by the immediate creation of an equitable interest.

Lionel

<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>

" These messages are all © their authors. Nothing in them constitutes legal advice, to anyone, on any topic, least of all Restitution. Be warned that very few propositions in Restitution command universal agreement, and certainly not this one. Have a nice day! "

»
»
»
»
»

For editorial policy, see here.
For the unedited archive, see here.
The archive editor is Steve Hedley.