83,371
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
The court found that this language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document constituting the deed. Additionally, the fact that the parties ''intended'' them to be deeds, rather than that they were ''required by law to be'' deeds (in order to have legal effect) was what mattered: “the fact remains that the parties intended them to be deeds and their validity must be judged on that basis”. | The court found that this language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document constituting the deed. Additionally, the fact that the parties ''intended'' them to be deeds, rather than that they were ''required by law to be'' deeds (in order to have legal effect) was what mattered: “the fact remains that the parties intended them to be deeds and their validity must be judged on that basis”. | ||
{{sa}} | |||
*[[Deed]] | |||
*[[Signed, sealed, delivered]] | |||
{{ref}} | {{ref}} |