Carol Messy and Leo Messy will be advised as follows:
1. The open contract that was entered into is a bare agreement and the rights and obligations of them hereinafter referred to as “the Purchaser” and Diego Suarez hereinafter referred to as “the Vendor” is regulated by case law, statute and conventional conveyance practices. 2. The Vendor’s obligation is greater than the Purchaser. As such he must show: a. that he have good marketable title to Anfield
b. He is capable of conveying , or he has the power to procure the conveyance of, the whole of the legal and equitable estate of Anfield free from encumbrances c. He is capable of preparing and delivering to us an abstract of title commencing with a good root of title d. He can produce a copy of the deed which is certified by the Registrar General by virtue of Section 19 Registration of Deeds Act Ch. 19:06. Our duty is to compare the abstract of title with the copy of the Deed and examine and identify the Lot being sold to that described under the open contract and in the abstract. 3. The merits of title will be dependent upon the Vendor’s ownership, the right to his property and evidence of that ownership. However, proof of ownership is limited to possession for a period long enough only to make better legal rights improbable, not impossible. Further possession is prima facie evidence of right which becomes conclusive when the rights of all other persons are conclusive. 4. The Vendor told us that he is hoping to settle the court matter soon which will assure that the land will be free from encumbrances. The undertaking to settle the court matter is an undertaking to free the property from such encumbrances. If title is conveyed with such encumbrances we should not be compelled to accept the purchase of the property because it is not that which contractually the Vendor has undertaken to give: Re Atkinson’s and Horsell’s Contract  5. The abstract of title is a written...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document