Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
Worth Richard: Property Law Bill — In Committee 
[Volume:642;Page:11828] 
Dr RICHARD WORTH (National) 
: 
 Part 2 of course is concerned with general rules relating to dispositions instruments transactions and property. It has some seven subparts which separately deal with a range of issues of interest to lawyers but not I suspect to the general public. Subpart 1 deals with deeds powers of appointment disclaimers and powers of attorney. Subpart 2 which I wish to deal with at some length deals with writing required in certain cases. Subpart 3 deals with sales and other similar transactions. Subpart 4 deals with the apportionment of periodical payments between vendors and purchasers. And there are three more subparts which deal with particular issues. 
I was drawn—as I am sure the Minister would similarly have been drawn—to this curious provision in clause 22 which is entitled “Persons between 18 and 20 years may do certain things”. It is perhaps a statement of where the Labour Government is that it now is legislating for people in various age ranges as to what particular activities they are permitted to undertake. Clause 22 allows persons between 18 and 20 years of age to carry out a number of activities—some of which it may be that this Parliament would not approve of. But surprisingly clause 22(2) states: “Anything done by a person under subsection (1) has the same effect as if the person were 20 years old.” None of that is terribly clear to anyone interested in these matters. 
I also noted just looking at these technical issues that have so bogged down the Government and have resulted in the incredible delay in the legislation being introduced that in clause 23(2)(a) it states: “words denoting a gender include every other gender:” Now that is a very interesting statement because most of us would have a view that there were two genders—masculine and feminine. But the Government has opened up a new possibility—perhaps more than one—that there may be genders apart from male and female that should be given specific consideration in this legislation. I rather doubt that but it seems that it was an important point for the Government to make in this legislation. 
What I think is probably more significant in Subpart 2 is that it records two obligations that have always been critical from the perspective of property lawyers—that is that contracts for the sale and purchase of land need to be in writing. The bill makes it clear that a doctrine called the doctrine of part performance still applies. There was an opportunity to make a change there. I am glad that no change has in fact been made because probably in the reality of property transactions in the course of a person’s life the buying and selling of his or her home is the most significant transaction—apart from marriage—that he or she enters into. It is important that there be a clear understanding as to what the terms of the deal are. That is why clause 24 provides that contracts for disposition of land are not enforceable unless in writing. 
The other provision clause 27 is about guarantees. From a practical lawyer’s perspective it is clearly appropriate that contracts of guarantee be in writing. I also commend that particular provision.