To pass the benefit of a positive covenant by implied assaignment the covenant must touch and concern the land. 'nature, quality, mode of use or value of land'
1 of 5
Austerberry v Oldham Cpn 1855/ Rhone v Stephens 1994
The burden of a positive covenant will not pass, reaffirmed in Rhone. However, can potentially sue original coventor under privity of contract or it may run under indirect methods.
2 of 5
Halsall v Brizell 1956
Doctrine of Halsall (mutual benefit) is an indirect method of making a positive burden run, e.g. shared driveway
3 of 5
Tulk v Moxhay 1848
To pass the burden of a negative covenant it must meet the 4 requirements set out in this case
4 of 5
Federated Homes v Mill Lodge Properties
A way to pass the benefit of a negative covenant is by annexation (permernant attachment of covenant to land
5 of 5
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
The burden of a positive covenant will not pass, reaffirmed in Rhone. However, can potentially sue original coventor under privity of contract or it may run under indirect methods.
Back
Austerberry v Oldham Cpn 1855/ Rhone v Stephens 1994
Card 3
Front
Doctrine of Halsall (mutual benefit) is an indirect method of making a positive burden run, e.g. shared driveway
Back
Card 4
Front
To pass the burden of a negative covenant it must meet the 4 requirements set out in this case
Back
Card 5
Front
A way to pass the benefit of a negative covenant is by annexation (permernant attachment of covenant to land
Comments
No comments have yet been made