The Yeates case is a case of negative possession. The plaintiffs in the case asked the Chief Land Registrar to be registered as owners of a small strip of land and claimed that they had acquired the property through harmful property. The defendants on the merits raised objections to the claim for prejudicial possession and the dispute was referred to an adjudication hearing. During the oral proceedings, it appeared that the parties met on the ground in question to discuss the matter. Prior to the oral proceedings, it was decided between the parties that the respondents would fence off part of the land in question and leave to the plaintiffs a small portion of the land south of the fence. The adjudicator decided that the plaintiffs had acquired ownership of the strip of land through unfavourable possession, but that since the oral compromise agreement between the parties was a legally binding contract, the register would not be amended to reflect the change in ownership of the land. A contract for the sale or other assignment of immovable property may be concluded only in writing and taking into account all the conditions expressly agreed upon by the parties in a document or in the case of exchange of contracts, in each document. These will be the requirements of section 2(1) of the Law of Property (Commissions Miscellaneous) Act 1989. This rule has been questioned in the recent case of Yeates and another v Line and another  All ER (D) 140 (Nov). The Court decided that an agreement under Article 2(1) of the Act had to be in writing if it had an object of disposition and more than a trivial amount of land was sold. In this case, the amount of land dumped was trivial and the purpose of the agreement was not to dispose of the country, but to compromise on borders. Although the agreement had a deterrent effect, the Court therefore held that the oral agreement between the parties was a valid contract.
The applicant appealed the adjudicator`s decision on the basis that the agreement to compromise was not a valid contract, given that a contract for the sale or other disposition of land pursuant to section 2(1) of the Miscellaneous Commissions Act 1989 must be in writing. The Court of Appeal dismissed their appeal. This is cash that has been deposited by LBHI in accounts and has been mortgaged to JP Morgan (including its related companies, „JPM“) pursuant to Paragraph 6(b) of the Multilateral Disposition Agreement („MDA“) with JPM with effect from March 31, 2010. Appendix B TO THE MASTER STOCK DISPOSITION AGREEMENT Valid from 8 to 10, 1998 ACCEPTANCE OF THE TERMS OF THE MASTER AGREEMENT The borrower signed after receiving and verifying an authentic and correct copy of the Master Stock Disposition Agreement between Lennox International Inc. The employee of the holding company can only be exempted from repaying the loan when the parties have fully complied with the share injunction contract. Subject to the Share Transfer Agreement (hereinafter referred to as the „Share Transfer Agreement“) of 01 July 2008, Shengqu or a third party designated by shengqu and the holding company has the exclusive possibility to receive at any time all the shares held by the Shanghai Shulong holding company. The company must have fulfilled its obligations under the disposition agreement (the „disposition agreement“) of August 4, 2008 between the buyer and the company. . .