Haywood v Brunswick Permanent Building Society [1881] 8 QBD 403
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:01:45 UTC
Defendant undertook to keep land rented to him by Plaintiff in good repair and to rebuild elements where necessary. CA held that Tulk did not apply to positive covenants.
Brett LJ
To extend Tulk to non restrictive covenants would be to create a new equity.
RELATED CASES
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Tulk v Moxhay
Tulk (T) sold a vacant plot of land in Leicester Square to E. E covenanted that he, his assignees and his heirs would “keep and maintain” the land in an open state, uncovered with any buildings. Moxh...
Rhone v Stephens
Equity does not cover the enforcement of positive covenants against successors in title of the land. Lord Templeman : Equity cannot compel an owner to comply with a positive covenant entered into by...
Wrotham Park Estate Co v Parkside Homes
X sold 47 acres out of the 4000 acre Estate. This land was subject to a restrictive covenant ‘not to develop the . . . land for building purposes except in strict accordance with plans [approved by t...
Walsh v Lonsdale
Defendant granted Plaintiff a lease, but the formalities were never completed. Plaintiff later tried to claim that there was no lease and therefore that he wasn’t bound by it. However CA held that eq...
Fairclough v Swan Brewery
A mortgage cannot be made irredeemable, and equity will not allow any scheme or device to obstruct or delay redemption, whether it was implemented before or after the mortgage transaction. While rest...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.