Legalese - does this paragraph mean what I think it means?
Discussion
“The Transferee grants out of the property for the benefit of the Transferor and the Management Company the First Rentcharge and the Estate Rentcharge”
I read this to mean that the First Rentcharge and the Estate Rentcharge are payable by the Transferee, but not clear who gets paid? Is it the Transferor or the Management Company, or both, or does this mean that the Transferee guarantees to pay on behalf of the Transferor and/or the Management Company?
Can anyone give a word by word translation? Please.
I read this to mean that the First Rentcharge and the Estate Rentcharge are payable by the Transferee, but not clear who gets paid? Is it the Transferor or the Management Company, or both, or does this mean that the Transferee guarantees to pay on behalf of the Transferor and/or the Management Company?
Can anyone give a word by word translation? Please.
Its preceded by two clauses:
To pay the First Rentcharge to the Management Company
To pay the Estate Rentcharge to the Management Company
So I think there is confusion between the clauses....
How does the Transferor get a benefit from the preceding clause if all payments are to the Management Company?
To pay the First Rentcharge to the Management Company
To pay the Estate Rentcharge to the Management Company
So I think there is confusion between the clauses....
How does the Transferor get a benefit from the preceding clause if all payments are to the Management Company?
This may help -
http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal...
Rentcharge is a w
ky and old fashioned word used by land lawyers (an old fashioned bunch). It can refer to both a payment and a form of security interest (a charge on land).
The payment clauses here tell you who pays the payments to whom. The grant clause indicates the creation of a security interest. So payment is from transferee to management company, but transferor and the management company each have the benefit of the charge.
Rotten drafting, I agree, but land law is stubbornly resistant to modernisation.
http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal...
Rentcharge is a w
ky and old fashioned word used by land lawyers (an old fashioned bunch). It can refer to both a payment and a form of security interest (a charge on land).The payment clauses here tell you who pays the payments to whom. The grant clause indicates the creation of a security interest. So payment is from transferee to management company, but transferor and the management company each have the benefit of the charge.
Rotten drafting, I agree, but land law is stubbornly resistant to modernisation.
Thanks Breadvan, kind of aligns to what I though it meant
The bit I am struggling to get my head around is the "benefit" for the Transferor.
I cant see any benefit to the Transferor unless its around how by requiring the transferee to pay the rentcharge to the management company, the transferor has mitigiated any potential cost to themselves associated with overall site maintenance.
The bit I am struggling to get my head around is the "benefit" for the Transferor.
I cant see any benefit to the Transferor unless its around how by requiring the transferee to pay the rentcharge to the management company, the transferor has mitigiated any potential cost to themselves associated with overall site maintenance.
Sometimes lazy lawyers use boilerplate and don't think through whether it means anything, so it might mean dick, but see below. If you are the paying party (transferee) you discharge your obligation by paying the management company. There may be some benefit for the transferor in having a charge on the property if, for example, the transferor has an agreement with the management company that some or all of the money paid by the transferee has to be paid over to the transferor.
Reading on a tad more, a thought arises. What counts more in contract law, the intent of a contract, or the actual content of a contract?
Without divulging details, if you understand what a contract was supposed to achieve, (the intent), but the content describes and delivers something else entirely, which takes precedence?
Without divulging details, if you understand what a contract was supposed to achieve, (the intent), but the content describes and delivers something else entirely, which takes precedence?
A contract must always be interpreted so as to give effect to the intention of the parties BUT in a written contract the primary evidence of the intention of the parties is the words that they used when making the contract. If the words are not clear, there are various rules of interpretation used to ascertain contractual intent. In most cases, evidence from the parties as to what they intended is not allowed (because of the potential for fibbing), but there are exceptions to that rule.
Where a contract fails to reflect the intention of the parties one or both can seek what is known as rectification, but that's a rare thing.
Where both parties proceed on a mutually mistaken basis as to what a contract means, and it would be unfair to revert to the true meaning, something called an estoppel by convention can arise, but that is rare too.
Where a contract fails to reflect the intention of the parties one or both can seek what is known as rectification, but that's a rare thing.
Where both parties proceed on a mutually mistaken basis as to what a contract means, and it would be unfair to revert to the true meaning, something called an estoppel by convention can arise, but that is rare too.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff