Land law - covenants question

Watch this thread
jay19961
Badges: 3
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
‘To enforce a positive covenant [against successors in title of the land] would be to enforce a personal obligation against a person who has not covenanted. To enforce negative covenants is only to treat the land as subject to a restriction’ (LORD TEMPLEMAN, Rhone v. Stephens (1994)).
Discuss the differential treatment of positive and negative freehold covenants in law and whether it is justifiable or is in need of reform.

This was a question in the Oxford Land Law paper 2017. Any ideas? In law (rather than in equity) the burden of neither positive nor negative covenants run with the land, and I'm fairly sure the opposite is true for both with regards to the benefit.

The question specifically states 'in law' and 'freehold' so equity and leasehold covenants don't seem relevant.
0
reply
Notoriety
Badges: 22
Rep:
? You'll earn badges for being active around the site. Rep gems come when your posts are rated by other community members.
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
You should re-read your textbook if you're having difficulty with this.

A) Burden cannot run in law, negative or otherwise.
B) Benefit can run in law, negative or otherwise, if original convenantor is in situ.

However, that is not what the question is seemingly asking.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Has advance information helped during your exams?

Yes (40)
68.97%
No (14)
24.14%
I didn't use it to prepare (4)
6.9%

Watched Threads

View All