I had a weird essay question where A promises to buy from a third party for B, and B promises to buy land from a third party for A. So there are three contracts here, the contract between A and the third party, the contract between B and the third party, and the contract between A and B.
I thought the first two are SoF because they are actual purchases of land, whereas the contract between A and B isn't actually a contract to purchase land (A is not purchasing from B and B is not purchasing from A)...rather, it is a promise to purchase. So it is not the purchase itself, it is a promise to purchase, so it is once removed. And SoF applies only to the purchase itself.
But this ended up being wrong? I don't get it.
Also, in a title theory state, the lender gets title right away. So what if they randomly decide they want to keep the property, and reject the lender's payment? I know mortgages have right of redemption and all that but......in a title theory state, it technically is more of a sale than a mortgage (lender gave borrower money, and lender gets property). So how can they force lender to accept the money from borrower? Lender has title now so he can do what he wants.
Real Property Questions Forum
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
Anonymous Posting
Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are sharing sensitive information about bar exam prep. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.
Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned."
