However, the burden of certain covenants does run with the land in equity, under the rules in Tulk v Moxhay. Corporation of Oldham (1885) 29 Ch D 750. The burden of a covenant does not run with the land at common law: Austerberry v.The law on the running of the burden of a covenant must be examined. However, there is no contract between her and Carl. Whilst Belinda owned the land, Abi could have enforced the covenant as a matter of contract.The question, therefore, is whether the burden of the covenant has run with the land to Carl, so that he is obliged to carry out the terms of the covenant and repair the fence. Carl is a successor in title to the original covenantor. Belinda is the original covenantor, and has the burden. Answer: In this scenario, Abi is the covenantee and has the benefit of the covenant.Can Abi oblige Carl to carry out repairs to the fence? Abi has the benefit of a covenant entered into by Belinda that Belinda will maintain the fence between their gardens.The covenantor, who makes the promise, has the burden. They are the person to whom the promise is made. Answer: The covenantee has the benefit of a covenant.Does a covenantee have the benefit or burden of a covenant?.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |