Land law - covenants questionWatch this thread
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.
More law resources on TSR
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.