Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939]
Share
Re Buchanan-Wollaston’s Conveyance [1939] Ch 738, also referred to as Curtis v Buchanan-Wollaston [1939], revolves around whether an order of sale could be sought when such an order would contradict the express purpose of a contractual agreement among joint owners of property.
Four property owners, all with views of the ocean, jointly decided to purchase a piece of land situated between their respective houses and the waterfront. The purpose of this joint purchase was to protect their ocean views by preventing any construction on the land. Each owner entered into a deed of covenant, agreeing not to sell the waterfront property without first informing the other three owners and obtaining their consent. Despite this covenant, one owner expressed the desire to sell the land and sought a court order demanding the sale under the trusts for sale system. The primary issue was whether the court could grant an order of sale in response to the request of a single owner, thereby overriding the consent requirements specified in the express covenant made by all joint owners.
The court held that an order of sale should not be granted. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the express purpose of the covenant was to prevent any single owner from selling the land without the consent of the others. Granting an order of sale, in this case, would directly undermine the purpose of the contract and essentially assist a party in breaching the terms of the agreement.
Additionally, the court considered the likelihood that the sale of the land would lead to construction on the property, which would further undermine the original purpose of the joint purchase – protecting the ocean view. The court was reluctant to facilitate an outcome that would run counter to the intentions and agreements of the parties involved, emphasising the importance of upholding contractual obligations and the specific purpose for which the property was collectively acquired. In summary, the court's decision prioritised the preservation of the contractual arrangement and the protection of the agreed-upon purpose over the request for a sale that would have contradicted these terms.
Four property owners, all with views of the ocean, jointly decided to purchase a piece of land situated between their respective houses and the waterfront. The purpose of this joint purchase was to protect their ocean views by preventing any construction on the land. Each owner entered into a deed of covenant, agreeing not to sell the waterfront property without first informing the other three owners and obtaining their consent. Despite this covenant, one owner expressed the desire to sell the land and sought a court order demanding the sale under the trusts for sale system. The primary issue was whether the court could grant an order of sale in response to the request of a single owner, thereby overriding the consent requirements specified in the express covenant made by all joint owners.
The court held that an order of sale should not be granted. The court's reasoning was based on the fact that the express purpose of the covenant was to prevent any single owner from selling the land without the consent of the others. Granting an order of sale, in this case, would directly undermine the purpose of the contract and essentially assist a party in breaching the terms of the agreement.
Additionally, the court considered the likelihood that the sale of the land would lead to construction on the property, which would further undermine the original purpose of the joint purchase – protecting the ocean view. The court was reluctant to facilitate an outcome that would run counter to the intentions and agreements of the parties involved, emphasising the importance of upholding contractual obligations and the specific purpose for which the property was collectively acquired. In summary, the court's decision prioritised the preservation of the contractual arrangement and the protection of the agreed-upon purpose over the request for a sale that would have contradicted these terms.
