Talk:Covenant running with the land
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been assessed as Mid-importance on the assessment scale. |
This article links "privity" to the privity of contract entry, which is incorrect. "Privity" in the context of real covenants pertains to privity of estate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.56.68 (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Some updates to English and Welsh (and Australian) law: The burden of the covenant does not run at common law - Austerberry v Oldham Corporation (1885) 29 Ch D 750 - except where privity of estate (i.e. landlord and tenant relationship) exists. Halsall v Brizell [1957] Ch 169 allows the burden to run in limited circumstances (a positive burden will bind successors in title so long as the elect to take the benefit [burden/benefit relationship]). The burden does run, as long as it is not a positive burden, in equity. Tulk v Moxhay relates chiefly to equity allowing the burden to run in certain circumstances. Anyone else have further updates to this one before I go change it? LudBob (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
