Back
to top
Property and Land Law help!
Watch
Announcements
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Hello, I just need a little help with understanding positive covenants.
If a covenantor has agreed with the covenantee to maintain a wall, would the covenantor be in breach of the covenant if the covenantee has maintained the wall instead?
Thanks!
If a covenantor has agreed with the covenantee to maintain a wall, would the covenantor be in breach of the covenant if the covenantee has maintained the wall instead?
Thanks!
0
reply
Report
#2
Hello. Unfortunately I have no real experience but my advice is to research contract law online and make some notes on your findings. Look at some information online on positive and negative covenants and also put it into your own words as far as possible here. Read beyond the lines of the information that is provided. Infer the deeper meaning. And see if your law textbook has any relevant case studies to use or not that may help you to write your essay. Good luck. I also recommend flashcards as well as a effective means of remembering and writing up information.
1
reply
Report
#3
If the wall have been allowed to fall into disrepair then the covenantor breached the covenant. Presumably the covenantee would be looking for the covenantor to indemnify him/her for the expense incurred.
Not 100% sure on this one.
Not 100% sure on this one.
1
reply
(Original post by Lawschoolhack)
If the wall have been allowed to fall into disrepair then the covenantor breached the covenant. Presumably the covenantee would be looking for the covenantor to indemnify him/her for the expense incurred.
Not 100% sure on this one.
If the wall have been allowed to fall into disrepair then the covenantor breached the covenant. Presumably the covenantee would be looking for the covenantor to indemnify him/her for the expense incurred.
Not 100% sure on this one.
Would the same principles apply to positive covenants as restrictive covenants i.e. if the breach occurred for more than 20 years then it would be hard to enforce the breach against the covenantor?
0
reply
Report
#5
Why 20 years? Are you thinking of a possible defence? Are you thinking of a limitation issue? Or acquiescence? You need to explain why you think that there would be an enforcement issue after 20 years. I can’t see why you are thinking there might be a distinction between positive and negative covenants.
Last edited by Lawschoolhack; 1 month ago
0
reply
Report
#7
I know the answer but I am not going to tell you, what I will however tell you is that there are plenty of resources online that should equip you with the knowledge to answer this question, in addition to lectures on the topic that I presume you've had, and books on land law in general.
0
reply
Report
#8
(Original post by ROTL94)
I know the answer but I am not going to tell you, what I will however tell you is that there are plenty of resources online that should equip you with the knowledge to answer this question, in addition to lectures on the topic that I presume you've had, and books on land law in general.
I know the answer but I am not going to tell you, what I will however tell you is that there are plenty of resources online that should equip you with the knowledge to answer this question, in addition to lectures on the topic that I presume you've had, and books on land law in general.
I can't see what difference 20 years would make (unless it's a limitation issue where the choice of 20 years appears to be random) or the nature of the covenant between the covenantor and covenantee. The OP doesn't raise an issue regarding passing of burden/benefit.
I need a bit of help.
0
reply
X
Page 1 of 1
Go to first unread
Skip to page:
Quick Reply
Today on TSR
-
Ofqual consultationTeachers to use 'mini-exams' and other work to decide grades
- Is it too late to do well in my A-levels?
- How are you feeling today?
- 2021 wellbeing blog launch
- Student tips on lockdown mental health