Formalities in contracts
My Client Mr. Screams would like to appeal for the reversal of the agreement they had with the first respondent Mr. Hush about a land transfer. The two have a common interest in the love of bell ringing. However, mutual interest has changed due to my client’s current condition. Upon agreement, the two had a written note as evidence of the contract with all its contents partly meeting the statutory requirements in section 54A of the Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW). A trial for the case led to a judge’s decision that the contract they made was enforceable. The decision, however, was unfair as the contract failed to meet some crucial formalities to remain legally enforceable.
Formalities requirements
The contracts which deal with land interests are required to be in the form of writing so that they will be concrete evidence of their existence. The contents should include the names of the parties involved as well as their descriptions. The consideration would be how the two parties would benefit from the agreement and what can lead to the reverse or termination of the agreement. Furthermore, the matter in the subject is supposed to point at the specified land to avoid ambiguity which in this case has not been met. The special conditions applicable to the agreement should be indicated in the note or contract for future reference. There must be a signature for the charged party on the written document or their name can be recognized as the signature upon its identification by the charged individual. A written contract cannot be varied or terminated orally but in written form through the legal procedures.
How the formalities’ requirements are not met
My client, Mr. Scream needs to gain permission for the reversal of the land transfer agreement from the court of appeal since the contract he made with Mr. Hush did not meet all the formalities requirements. The two retired friends used to communicate in written form due to Mr. Hush’s inability to speak. The agreements communication was through private messaging on Facebook through which there was no electronic signature embedded as required by the law. The content would be recovered and printed but however, it would require to undergo a scrutinizing process according to NSW, Electronic Transaction Act. The names of the two parties were indicated on the note and that was proposed by Mr. Hush to represent the signatures. However, for land interest cases, that would not be a concrete evident due to fraud issues. The subject matter was indicated as ‘Belfry deal’ without any more descriptions. That was not clear enough about the terms tied to the agreement. The Act of part performance was to be done because there were no considerations indicated in case of any opposing issue arising. Based on this act, therefore, there was an allowance for part performance in the contract upon which my client acted on. Furthermore, no special conditions were available either from the electronic sources nor the written note forming the land transfer agreement. The original contract stipulated that the land was supposed to be transferred in two years time, this period had already expired when the contract was terminated which is acceptable by law. In general, could not meet all the requirements needed for Mr. Hush to have the part performance to be done for his favor.