Enforceability of covenants in 'old' leases - Person suing = benefit of the covenant & person being sued = burden of the covenant [this depends on determining whether the landlord has the benefit or burden and vice versa]
4 important questions on Enforceability of covenants in 'old' leases - Person suing = benefit of the covenant & person being sued = burden of the covenant [this depends on determining whether the landlord has the benefit or burden and vice versa]
Is the new tenant bound by the benefits and burdens of a covenant(s) by the original landlord in (Spencer's Case)? can the covenant be personal?
Explain the requirements for 'touch and concern the land' in (P&A Investments v Combined English Stores)?
- Covenant benefits only the reversioner(right of succession) (tenant/landlord)
- Covenant affects the nature/quality/mode of use/value of the land of the reversioner
- Covenant is not personal to the covenantor/covenantee (e.g. a covenant where the tenant provides the landlord with a three-course meal every month. MUST relate to the LAND = a covenant which restricts property being converted into a restaurant).
- If the covenant requires payment of a sum of money, it does not prevent it from touching the land so long as the three conditions are satisfied.
Do the benefits of every tenant covenant pass to the new landlord under (s. 141 LPA 1925)? What must the covenant have reference to?
- Higher grades + faster learning
- Never study anything twice
- 100% sure, 100% understanding
Do the burdens of every landlord covenant pass to the new landlord under (s.142 LPA 1925)? What must the covenant have reference to?
The question on the page originate from the summary of the following study material:
- A unique study and practice tool
- Never study anything twice again
- Get the grades you hope for
- 100% sure, 100% understanding