Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The covenant may be negative or affirmative. A negative covenant is one in which property owners are unable to perform a specific activity, such as block a scenic view. An affirmative covenant is one in which property owners must actively perform a specific activity, such as keeping the lawn tidy or paying homeowner's association dues for the ...
The notion of positive and negative rights may also be applied to liberty rights. To take an example involving two parties in a court of law: Adrian has a negative right to x against Clay, if and only if Clay is prohibited to act upon Adrian in some way regarding x.
A positive covenant is a kind of agreement relating to land, where the covenant requires positive expenditure by the person bound, in order to fulfil its terms. Unlike a restrictive covenant, a covenant to perform a positive act does not "run with the land" and therefore does not bind the covenantor’s successors in title.
Lord Templeman held that the covenant could not be enforced because the covenant was positive. His judgment said the following. [1]Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by his predecessors without flatly contradicting the common law rule that a person cannot be made liable upon a contract unless he was a party to it.
In this type of privity, the covenants may be positive or negative and, unless very inequitable, are generally held to be binding. After the case, instead of the first narrow privity of estate, any restrictive covenant chiefly needed to satisfy four lesser requirements to bind the successors in title:
It was already old law that positive covenants routinely bind successors in leasehold land. Until this case, conflicting decisions pointed to a narrow category of application of positive covenants (chiefly limited to for example the obligation to erect and maintain railings or fences) could bind successors (beyond the first covenantor, that is purchaser or donee) owning freehold land.
A fixture at any fast food restaurant or backyard barbecue is American cheese. These orange, plastic-wrapped slices are unparalleled in terms of meltability. For many, when it comes to making a ...
Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court case that held that racially restrictive housing covenants cannot legally be enforced.. The case arose after an African-American family purchased a house in St. Louis that was subject to a restrictive covenant preventing "people of the Negro or Mongolian Race" from occupying the property.