3 ms·

Sure, incurring additional detrimental reliance after notice of revocation is not compensable, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't recover — even under your h

Sure, incurring additional detrimental reliance after notice of revocation is not compensable, but that doesn't mean that I couldn't recover — even under your hypo. For example, if I was offered a long term grazing contract in 2021 at favorable rates, and I passed on it because I was able to graze with you, I could claim that the 2021 act was reasonable reliance and that if I have to pay more for a grazing contract now, I should be able to recover the difference. Of course, the landowner would argue that it isn't reasonable to pass up on a deal on grazing without first checking with the landowner to make sure the deal was good for the foreseeable future. This would all come down to facts and circumstances (as all reasonableness determinations do), including the duration of the historical practice, whether anything material had changed since then, etc. Is it better to have a contract? Absolutely. But as a seasoned lawyer will tell you, it's possible to kill a deal by papering it to death. A rancher might put it differently: don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

tialaramex 4y ago
Although I have always been a cash buyer because I don't like to owe people money, most "home owners" have a loan secured on the home, a mortgage, and mortgage lenders have rules about what they will or will not lend against, based on prevailing wisdom at the time the loan is made. For the lender, the cost of lost business if some customer can't buy a home isn't a massive concern, and most likely unless that lender is particularly stubborn and others are not, that customer would get turned away everywhere, so the effect is that homes you can't get a mortgage for are less valuable or even outright unsaleable. So it actually doesn't matter so much what you think as seller, or what I think as buyer, the most powerful sentiment is what third party lawyers working for the lenders think. If the lender (or their lawyers) don't like your promises, too bad, you can't make that work.
- gnicholas 4y ago
  Was this meant as a reply to this thread? I'm not quite seeing the connection.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    Even if your "bare promise" could work, which I'm dubious about, the larger problem is that the lender's lawyers probably aren't sure it would work, which means that they won't lend on homes bought this way, which makes the "bare promise" idea useless in practice. Maybe what wasn't clear is why homes come into it? The most common Peppercorn considerations are in Long Leases. A Long Lease might go like this, I own a plot of land somewhere, "Freehold" is the English term for this ownership. I obtain permission and I build a residential tower, with say forty dwellings inside it. That's one building, on one plot of land, but I need to sell it to forty separate buyers. Today there's a legal mechanism to do this, called Commonhold, but it's rarely used, however historically Commonhold didn't exist, so, if I own the plot of land, and the building, I would write leases for the dwellings inside the building with a long duration. Periods like 99 years, 125 years or even 999 years are often used. Then I sell those leases. As consideration the owner pays me one peppercorn per year, for the period, and I agree to let them live in my tower in exchange. This is called Leasehold ownership, for example somebody might pay £200 000 for a Long Lease on a modest two bedroom apartment in a nice area. These leases don't really (normally) "run out" because the law requires that they can be extended for a reasonable fee, so in practice they're usually permanent.
    - gnicholas 4y ago
      I mean, if it’s for real estate, you have to have a written document because of the statute of frauds. If you need a writing then there’s no reason not to put in some nominal consideration. I think of section 90 as the last resort, for situations that were likely not papered correctly, or at all.

tialaramex 4y ago

Although I have always been a cash buyer because I don't like to owe people money, most "home owners" have a loan secured on the home, a mortgage, and mortgage lenders have rules about what they will or will not lend against, based on prevailing wisdom at the time the loan is made. For the lender, the cost of lost business if some customer can't buy a home isn't a massive concern, and most likely unless that lender is particularly stubborn and others are not, that customer would get turned away everywhere, so the effect is that homes you can't get a mortgage for are less valuable or even outright unsaleable. So it actually doesn't matter so much what you think as seller, or what I think as buyer, the most powerful sentiment is what third party lawyers working for the lenders think. If the lender (or their lawyers) don't like your promises, too bad, you can't make that work.

gnicholas 4y ago
Was this meant as a reply to this thread? I'm not quite seeing the connection.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  Even if your "bare promise" could work, which I'm dubious about, the larger problem is that the lender's lawyers probably aren't sure it would work, which means that they won't lend on homes bought this way, which makes the "bare promise" idea useless in practice. Maybe what wasn't clear is why homes come into it? The most common Peppercorn considerations are in Long Leases. A Long Lease might go like this, I own a plot of land somewhere, "Freehold" is the English term for this ownership. I obtain permission and I build a residential tower, with say forty dwellings inside it. That's one building, on one plot of land, but I need to sell it to forty separate buyers. Today there's a legal mechanism to do this, called Commonhold, but it's rarely used, however historically Commonhold didn't exist, so, if I own the plot of land, and the building, I would write leases for the dwellings inside the building with a long duration. Periods like 99 years, 125 years or even 999 years are often used. Then I sell those leases. As consideration the owner pays me one peppercorn per year, for the period, and I agree to let them live in my tower in exchange. This is called Leasehold ownership, for example somebody might pay £200 000 for a Long Lease on a modest two bedroom apartment in a nice area. These leases don't really (normally) "run out" because the law requires that they can be extended for a reasonable fee, so in practice they're usually permanent.
  - gnicholas 4y ago
    I mean, if it’s for real estate, you have to have a written document because of the statute of frauds. If you need a writing then there’s no reason not to put in some nominal consideration. I think of section 90 as the last resort, for situations that were likely not papered correctly, or at all.