King v David Allen [1916] 2 AC 54
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:08 UTC
Plaintiff was granted a license by Defendant to advertise on his building for a set period and Defendant agreed to do whatever was necessary to prevent anyone else advertising there.
Defendant then sold the building to X who refused to allow Plaintiff to advertise.
Plaintiff sued Defendant for breach of contract and HL awarded damages, holding that the agreement was merely a right in personam, NOT in rem, and therefore could only be enforced against Defendant.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC
Defendant contracted to let Plaintiff use the town hall for a National Front demo and then repudiated (following council elections). Defendant sued Plaintiff and an injunction was granted. CA held th...
Re Webb’s Lease
Defendant leased a property to Plaintiff and advertised Defendant’s business by putting posters on the walls of the house (the posters had been there before Plaintiff moved in). Plaintiff wanted to h...
Peffer v Rigg
Plaintiff owned a property and had rented rooms out to Plaintiff made his co-owner, X, trustee of his right to half the house and rental income, before X sold his part ownership of the house to Defen...
Lyus v Prowsa
X had mortgaged land to Y before giving a right over it to Plaintiff. The right was not registered and not overriding. Nevertheless, Y, after repossession, decided to sell to Defendant subject to an...
Winter Garden Theatre v Millenium Productions
Plaintiff sold Defendant a license to show plays for 6 months, including an option to renew the licence for another 6 months, and at the end of the second period, to renew their license at a set rate...
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.