Land law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2000 words - 2

Land faithfulness - Essay ExampleThe major factor that forget be taken into consideration by the Courts is how the powder compact is drafted. In the exemplar of Martin v David Wilson Homes ltd2, the use of the word a in the agreement denoted a greater deal of flexibility than the use of the word one in the cheek of Crest Nicholson v McAllister3, where the cartel was deemed to be fully enforceable. In this case, the drafting of the Covenant is very clear that the station is not to be used to set up licensed premises such as a kibosh and will be strictly enforceable, especially because it is also registered, and therefore negate the young couples usance in purchasing the property.If Maggie and Dave choose to ignore the restrictive agreement and continue with building a halt on the premises, it could be demolished, as was the case in Mortimer and Another v Bailey and Another4, a restrictive covenant was successfully enforced to demolish a building. However working in their fa vor is the recent case of Sugarman and Porter and Others5 where an existing restrictive covenant on a property was deemed to be valid nevertheless up to the period the land remained unsold. In order for a restrictive covenant to be enforceable against subsequent owners such as Maggie and Dave, the land benefiting from the Covenant must be identifiable, but in this case the neighboring land belongs to a brewery which is not likely to benefit from the restrictive covenant against a bar on the premises. It is not immediately clear who can press for enforcement of this restrictive covenant, which was the same issue embossed in the case of Crest.6Maggie and Dave can also invoke the provisions of Section 84 of the Land and property Act of 1925, under which the Lands Tribunal may modify or discharge a restrictive covenant on a freehold title where over 40 years have passed. An application can be made by the young couple on the grounds that the existing covenant is an obstruction on the r easonable use of the property which