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 ...
Certain widely accepted negative obligations (such as the obligations to refrain from theft, murder, etc.) are often considered prima facie, meaning that the legitimacy of the obligation is accepted "on its face"; but even if not questioned, such obligations may still be ranked for ethical analysis. Most modern societies insist that other, very ...
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.
Negative covenants may be continuous or incurrence-based. Violations of negative covenants are rare compared to violations of affirmative covenants. With most debt (including corporate debt, mortgages and bank loans) a covenant is included in the debt contract which states that the total amount owed becomes immediately payable on the first ...
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:
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.
"I [thought to myself], ‘Oh, no, this is not going to happen today,’ ” Linda Rosa recalled of the incident
because a successive covenant cannot override a prior one, the subjects cannot (lawfully) change the form of government. because the covenant forming the commonwealth is the subjects giving to the sovereign the right to act for them, the sovereign cannot possibly breach the covenant; and therefore the subjects can never argue to be freed from ...