82,938
edits
Law of Property Act 1925: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
===Section 93=== | ===Section 93=== | ||
By contracting out of section 93 of the Act we can consolidate all [[security]] granted by a counterparty into a single [[security interest]].Relevant if you have multiple | By contracting out of section 93 of the Act we can consolidate all [[security]] granted by a counterparty into a single [[security interest]]. Relevant if you have multiple charges, mortgages and security interests. You might not intend to - but you never know how a relationship can develop. If you don't disapply it, you could be left with parallel security interests - so you may lose out if there is an excess under one and a shortfall under the other (in that you may wind up as an unsecured creditor for that rump). There is no particular benefit to the client in resisting it, so HOLD THE LINE, TOTO. | ||
===Section 103=== | ===Section 103=== | ||
Section 103 predates cuddly consumer protection we have | Section 103 predates the cuddly consumer protection legislation we have nowadays. It is meant to stop aggressive mortgagees seizing mortgaged property before any breach by the mortgagor. It imposes grace periods which, by the atomic-clock-like standards of the modern finance industry, are positively heroic in length. ''Three months'', for example. Three cotton-picking ''months''. | ||
Prime brokers, of course, are a more genteel breed and typically the document would contain provisions protecting the client from the ravages of nasty Edwardian robber barons and Georgian loan sharks. Three months - I mean, come ''on''. | Prime brokers, of course, are a more genteel breed and typically the document would contain provisions protecting the client from the ravages of nasty Edwardian robber barons and Georgian loan sharks. Three months - I mean, come ''on''. | ||