0

Mindy Chen-Wishart. Contract Law (2018 6 edn). p 121. I read Law of Property Act 1925 s(205)(1)(xxi) quoted, but still don't understand (ii).

(xxi) “Purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property except that in Part I of this Act and elsewhere where so expressly provided “purchaser” only means a person who acquires an interest in or charge on property for money or money’s worth; and in reference to a legal estate includes a chargee by way of legal mortgage; and where the context so requires “purchaser” includes an intending purchaser; “purchase” has a meaning corresponding with that of “purchaser”; and “valuable consideration” includes marriage [F6, and formation of a civil partnership,] but does not include a nominal consideration in money;

enter image description here

Improve this question
1
  • The secret sauce might be: 1. Check out the meaning of a "bona fide purchaser for value without notice"; and 2. valuable consideration can still be £1 (notice that the section provides for non-pecuniary consideration of marriage), and 3. you've cited a definition alone (ie a Purchaser for the purposes of the Act). That definition will apply somewhere in the Act. You probably need to look at the operation of the definition within the context of that use.
    – lellis
    Commented Nov 24, 2019 at 20:43

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
0

I think that the key to understanding that sentence is understanding what exactly, nominal consideration is less secure than. In context, it appears that nominal consideration is less secured in terms of contract enforceability than paying consideration that is more than nominal and instead constitutes substantially equivalent value to what is received in the transaction.

In the U.S., we would call a contract made for far less than substantially equivalent value that prejudices a third party interest a "fraudulent transfer".

It does not appear to me that this statement is saying that nominal consideration that amounts to an extreme bargain sale is less secure or enforceable than, for example, an outright gift.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.