INDEMNITY CLAUSE IN LAND TRANSACTION (CONTINUATION)

As a follow up on yesterday's post, I want to state the position of the law on the scenario in that post.

The position of the law on the question in that scenario is simply that the vendor (I.e., the family) in the land transaction owed the purchaser a legal obligation to settle the claim of the third party laying claim to the crops on the land, the subject matter of the transaction. This is the essence of the indemnity clause the purchaser's lawyer had inserted into the written agreement between his client( the purchaser) and the family (the vendor) earlier.This clause implies that the vendor shall bear any loss arising from the claim of a third party in respect of the property after the sale.If the family failed/omitted to comply with this term, the vendor could go to court to enforce it.

Once  the the purchaser had bought the land lawfully from the family, he had acquired title to it though subject to the Land Use Act.By the common law principle of 'quic quid plantatur solo solo cedit', with this legal interest to the in the land, the vendor even owns anything on it in the absence of any provision to the contrary.However, because of the interplay between law and morality, the vendor in such circumstances may waive claiming the crops on land bought.He may let go of the crops and let there be peace as long as he is not asked to still part with his money in settlement of any claim to those crops by a third party.

Thank you for your attention.

See you again tomorrow.