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 legal provision in the loan agreement providing for the loan to be "called" is the "acceleration clause": once the buyer defaults, all future payments due under the loan are "accelerated" and deemed to be due and payable immediately. [1] Covenants may also be waived, either temporarily or permanently, usually at the sole discretion of 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.
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:
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 U.S. law, the legal concept of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing arose in the mid-19th century because contemporary legal interpretations of “the express contract language, interpreted strictly, appeared to grant unbridled discretion to one of the parties”. [1] In 1933, in the case of Kirke La Shelle Company v.