What Is A Vendor`s Lien Agreement
In the present case, Menelaou v. Bank of Cyprus, a bank had agreed to release its guarantee for a property that had been sold on the grounds that it had to be given certainty about another property acquired with part of the proceeds of the sale. The security for the second property was invalid because it was a fraud. Although the seller from whom the second property was purchased was paid in full, the bank was transferred to the seller`s lien because it had allowed the release of funds used to settle debts owed to the seller. The bank claimed to have been redeemed on the seller`s unpaid lien through the Great Oak Court, and this issue was eventually decided by the Menelaou Supreme Court against Bank of Cyprus  AC 176 in favour of the bank. The bank attempted to enforce the privilege it had conveyed by selling the property. The questions before Mr. Matthews were whether and, if so, how the privilege to which the bank had been transferred should be applied. However, in deciding these issues, the master had to consider the nature of an unpaid seller`s lien. “As is clear from what I have already said, the privilege of an unpaid seller is a reasonable commission, created by law, but having the power to be created amicably by letter to guarantee the payment of the purchase price.
It therefore falls within the definition of “hypothec” within the meaning of the Property Law Act 1925, section 205 of which defines “hypothec” as including “any royalty or lien on property to secure money or monetary value”. The fact that, as Lord Eldon noted, it has characteristics that mean it does not have the nature of a mortgage in the traditional sense of the word does not matter. This means that the power to charge reasonable fees contained in section 90 of the 1925 Act applies in this case. This includes the power to appoint a person to transfer the land and give the “mortgage holder” a period of several years to complete the sale, as is typically the case with the enforcement of fee orders. “We consider below the circumstances in which a person may hold an `unpaid seller`s lien`, the impact of such a lien in the Supreme Court`s Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd  EWHC 2656 and what best practices should apply in the future to transactions where such a lien may arise. The lien under equity law survives both the completion and abandonment of the property by the seller, to the extent that the purchase price is unpaid. “The unpaid seller`s privilege takes precedence over what he sells and transfers. It “comes from above, so to speak.” What the buyer/acquirer receives is what is left. It is as if the seller was selling the property from which a hereditary building right has already been granted. The buyer never gets that. As Mr.
Polli said, the buyer only takes what, if the lien were a mortgage, would be the fairness of repayment. What is subject to the trust is only what the applicant receives. “It seems to me that, with the exception of section 90 of the 1925 Act, there is no code of law relating to privileges. However, remedies available to the unpaid seller under the lien, which are essentially at the discretion of the court, will not be granted unless the court finds it fair. It is a fair way. And in this consideration, the court will take into account all the relevant circumstances of the case. Virtually everything that one of the legal regulations should have taken into account anyway is taken into account. I therefore turn to these circumstances. Mr. Matthews then considered how a sales order request to enforce an unpaid seller`s lien should be dealt with by the court. The Bank applied for an order under section 90 of the Property Law Act 1925 (“APA 1925”) and Mr. Matthews concluded that this was correct.
In , he stated the following: The unpaid seller`s privilege is based on the principle that a person who has acquired possession of immovable property under a contract of remuneration cannot retain it without payment of consideration […].
Comments are closed.