虽然考试在即，但是还是在这里给大家普及下基本法律常识：结婚跟同居的区别，以及按揭贷款的隐患：

land law case：Burns v Burns

Mr n Mrs Burns were unmarried couple living in a house. (She changed her name though they are not married) The purchase money was solely financed by Mr Burns's family trust, therefore, registered under Mr Burns's name only. Mrs Burns undertook most of domestic housework and daily expenses.

After 20 years of relationship, they broke up. Mrs Burns claimed overriding interest and thus a share of the house.

BUT court ruled, Mrs Burns had to walk away with NOTHING after 20 years of co-habitation.

 

Sorry for Mrs Burns but she simply ASSUMED she had a right in land. Land Law is designed to be definite, not fair.

合法不合理的情况是存在的。薄薄一张结婚证书就可以解决问题。所以刘嘉玲跟梁朝伟结婚不结婚是有差别的。以后大家可要注意。千万别干什么男买房，女买车的傻事，要买AA嘛，再说了，买房保值，买车用几年就二手了，怎么能混为一谈呢。为了广大女性的自身利益，建议以后买房还是要出钱。

 

还有mortgage，买房按揭是不错啦，问题是the mortgagee has right to possess the premises as soon as 'the ink is dry' on the mortgage agreement.就说，你按揭了，从你签好字那刻开始，房子就不是你的了，几乎就是个定时炸弹，银行可以随时收回房子（不使用暴力的情况下），除非你在家呆着，他们不能破门而入，这是刑事案件。所以还是少买房，买房了尽量赶紧还完贷款。那些按揭买房又不住的人，说不定改天房子被银行卖了都不知道。

---

Reasons of judgement in Burns v Burns see below:

she's not married, so Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 didn't apply

no equitable interest under Resulting trust cos she didn't contribute to the PURCHASE price of the house

constructive trust did not apply cos there was no express decleration of her having a SHARE in the house (no common intention)

Stack v Dowdon (if Burns appeal today) still would not apply, still no common intention

proprietary estoppel? not applicable, no assurance was ever made.)