I’m not one who is willing to sacrifice everything for love. There are things that I just won’t do, not even for the sake of love. I’m quite a selfish lover, you see.

  Esther is obviously very different from me. In the case of Esther Chan Pui Chan v Gilbert Leung Kam Ho, she became the subject of ridicule among her family and friends when her lover was convicted of bribery and sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

  She even gave up her career. Imagine that.

  I personally don’t think love will make a person sacrifice so much, and apparently, that’s the view the court took. It was held that love alone would not have caused her to do all the things she did. She did it, partly because of love, partly because the man promised to marry her, and partly because he agreed to give her a share in his assets.

  Finding true love is important for us ladies, but if we have to choose between true love and financial security, the fact that we are living in a materialistic world where “money talks”, I am of the view that most girls will choose to give up true love and go for financial security.

  Of course, the best thing would be to have both!

It happens all the time: we promise our parents something, and we never ended up carrying out the act which we promised. Sometimes we have a tendency to take our parents for granted…

Of course, for trivial things like, “I promise to take out the trash”, it is still okay to “accidentally forget” that we had promised so. Our parents get angry and scold us for a bit and get over it.

But what if you made a huge promise?

In Thompson v Foy, the daughter, upon her mother’s encouragement, built an extension to the family home and subsequently had the house transferred by the mother to the daughter. The daughter later mortgaged it to the bank. The mother’s initial plan was that part of the monies released will be given to her so she could start a new life in Spain. Of course, the daughter had failed to giver her mother the amount of money she was expecting.

One of the argument that arised here was that there was undue influence. As the mother had acted for family motives, had fully understood what she was doing and had the effect of transactions explained to her by the conveyancing solicitor, there was no undue influence.

I feel bad for the mother. It was a huge promise, the law should compel the daughter to honor the promise. Teensy weensy promises like “take out the trash” does not really attract criticism when they are not honoured, but the same could not be said for huge promises like this.

On the other hand, the purpose of land law is to make lands more marketable. It is not really about what is just and what is not. Which is why the law had preferred to protect the interest of purchasers, mortgagees, secured creditors, and so on…

Law can’t protect everyone. The best that law can do is to strike a balance between two competing interests.

Moral of the story? You yourself are in the best position to protect your rights. Law is not almighty.

  Ladies, when you get to know a new guy, please take off that rosy-colored spectacles. Use the magnifying glasses to scrutiny him: You don’t want to end up with nothing but sadness and sorrows like the ladies in the cases below.

  Look at what happened in Chhokar v Chhokar [1984]. In this case, a husband and wife purchased the registered freehold of a matrimonial home (In simple English, they purchased a house). They both contributed to the purchase price and upkeep of the house, but guess what? It was registered in the name of the husband only. In the next year both of them went to India but the husband later returned home alone. Few weeks later the wife, who was seven month pregnant, returned home too. She was unaware of the fact that her husband had mad arrangement to sell the house to someone else at a price below market value. The wife and the new born baby returned home after discharged from hospital to discover that all the locks had been changed.

  None of us would want that to happen to us, right? For me, I would want my future husband to be by my side when I’m giving birth. Ideally, he should be there to hold my hands and comfort me as he watched me struggle. I want him to be there for me, not to be at somewhere else doing something that will ruin my life and break my heart. It’s bad enough that I’m breaking my vagina to give him a child; he doesn’t have to break anything else that could further enhance my detriment.

  Now let’s look at another case: Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard [1986]. Here in this case husband had the unregistered title of the property in his name only, but he held it on trust for sale for himself and his wife (meaning the wife was not the legal owner of the house). The marriage the broken down and the wife occasionally spent nights at her sister’s house. However, whenever her husband is absent from the house for business, she will return to their matrimonial home and continue to take care of the kids as well as to prepare herself for work.

  What happened next? The husband negotiated a loan with Kingsnorth Finance and he applied as a single. When an agent for Kingsnorth Finance inspected his property, he confessed to the agent that he was married, but he then claimed that his wife and left him and is currently living somewhere else, which is untrue.

  Tell me why: Why is it that a wife can continue to tolerate and take care of the kids when she is so angry with her husband, but the husband cannot do the same?

  We shall look at another case called Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset [1989]. This is a case where husband and wife purchased a semi-derelict farmhouse, where the wife had a beneficial interest in the property. The husband sought a short term loan without his wife’s knowledge and he had left his farm and wife when they were faced with matrimonial difficulties. The loan was not repaid and the bank now sought an order for possession.

  Why are some guys not only heartless and cruel but useless as well? I mean, if you are good-looking, smart, intelligent but you are cruel and heartless… well at least you are not a piece of crap, even though you obviously are nothing but crap in the eyes of the woman who had her heart broken by you, but at least to the rest of the world you are still reputable. You will be something like a vampire: you are dreadful, you are evil, people are scared of you, but the ladies will still pay money to watch you in the cinema. On the other hand, if you are cruel and heartless, and you have neither looks nor brains… you are nothing but crap towards everyone who is aware of your existence.

  Of course, while we point the finger of blame at the men, us ladies ought to learn a thing or two from these cases as well: Just because you are in love, it doesn’t mean you have to be a noble person and allow your man to do whatever he wants. Know your rights and protect your rights so he can’t take advantage of you. Being in love does not mean you have to stop being rational!

P.S. Studying land law sometimes make me hate men. So far I haven’t come across any case that portrays man as someone fantastic!