Chapter 13 Scenario questions

* not completed

. Jakob is the owner of Knightly Manor in East Sussex. 6 months ago, he sold 3 acres and he entered into an agreement with the purchaser and his new neighbour, Zoë, to prevent her from building more than 2, 3 storey houses on this plot of land. Zoë now wants to build 45 flats. What is the easiest method of enforcing the covenant against Zoë?

The equitable rules for passing the burden correct incorrect

The doctrine of mutual benefit and burden correct incorrect

The common law rules on passing the benefit correct incorrect

Privity of contract correct incorrect

* not completed

. Sadly for Jakob, his father recently passed away, and so he has had to return to the family farm in Dorset to help support his mother. He therefore sold Knightly Manor to a retired Director of Public Prosecutions, Timothy, who wants a quiet life. Jakob, after the sale went through, then informed Timothy of Zoë's intentions. Will Timothy have been passed the benefit of the covenant at common law?

No, as Timothy did not derive their title from the original covenantee, as required by Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v. River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 All ER 179 correct incorrect

No, as there was no intention for the covenant to run with the land, as required by Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v. River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 All ER 179 correct incorrect

Yes, as all the requirements set out in Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v. River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 All ER 179 have been met correct incorrect

No, as the covenant does not touch and concern the land, as required by Smith and Snipes Hall Farm Ltd v. River Douglas Catchment Board [1949] 2 All ER 179 correct incorrect

* not completed

. Zoë, realising that she would be unable to go back on her agreement not to build more than 2 houses, has sold the 3 acres of land to a new party, BUILD!, BUILD!, BUILD!, Ltd. The existence of the covenant was noted in the charges register. Will the burden of the covenant have passed to BUILD!, BUILD!, BUILD!, Ltd?

No, because it is a positive covenant correct incorrect

Yes, as all the requirements set out in Tulk v Moxhay are met correct incorrect

No, because there was no registration correct incorrect

No, because there was no intention for the burden to bind successors correct incorrect

* not completed

. Kwame has the benefit to a restrictive covenant limiting his neighbour, Ban-Ki Jong, to using the land only for residential purposes. Ban-Ki Jong, however, wishes to open up a Tibetan restaurant. The covenant does not have any express words indicating that the covenant should be tied to Ban-Ki Jong's land, but it does identify the land. Kwame is not an original party to the covenant, having bought the property from the original covenantee. How will the benefit of the covenant have passed in Equity?

Statutory annexation correct incorrect

Express annexation correct incorrect

Implied annexation correct incorrect

A building scheme correct incorrect

* not completed

. Aisling recently bought a house in the middle of a development. The original owner of the house, whom she purchased the property from, covenanted to pay £6786 a year to cover the maintenance costs of the estate's tennis courts. They also covenanted to pay £4562 a year to cover the maintenance of the estate's roads – the only way in and out of the estate. Will Aisling be obligated to pay the moneys owed under the covenants under the doctrine of mutual benefit and burden?

Aisling will not have to pay any of the moneys owed correct incorrect

Aisling will only have to pay for the road maintenance correct incorrect

Aisling will only have to pay for the tennis courts correct incorrect

Aisling will have to pay all of the moneys owed correct incorrect