tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891120816560616277.post5065967507201100837..comments2023-05-08T07:14:54.672-07:00Comments on What's Your Problem?: Leasehold CovenantsJustin Santiagohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18073114375084133285noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891120816560616277.post-73082190670253588332015-08-01T21:51:33.396-07:002015-08-01T21:51:33.396-07:00Overall it is an good an analytical essay on lease...Overall it is an good an analytical essay on leasehold covenant,<br />However, I found a weak point in the part of the benefit and burden to assignee of landlord and assignee of tenant in equitable lease. You mentioned that:<br /><br /> "Also, by comparing the scope of both AL and AT’s liabilities and abilities to sue, ........................................................ Therefore, AT may only enforce covenants in a legal lease. <br /> AL, on the other hand, has the ability to sue pursuant to S141 LPA 1925, on covenants in all leases which have reference to the subject matter of the lease pursuant to S142 LPA, which includes legal leases, equitable leases and oral leases................... This shows that L has a wider scope to sue while T has a limited scope to sue.<br /><br />So the weak point is that if there is an equitable lease, viz no privity of estate between the AL and AT, the AT is not bound by the obligation of covenant. According to your words and the rule of Spencer's case, there must be a legal lease for the burden of covenant (assuming it is "touch and concern with the land") passed to AT. Consequently, how come the AL can sue AT in an equitable lease in the circumstance in which the AT has no obligation to perform the covenant? The only way that AL can protect himself is by seeking injunction against AT preventing any breach of the restrictive covenant under the Tulk rule.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17855719263226242943noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2891120816560616277.post-40584593824761845822015-08-01T21:51:08.450-07:002015-08-01T21:51:08.450-07:00Overall it is an good an analytical essay on lease...Overall it is an good an analytical essay on leasehold covenant,<br />However, I found a weak point in the part of the benefit and burden to assignee of landlord and assignee of tenant in equitable lease. You mentioned that:<br /><br /> "Also, by comparing the scope of both AL and AT’s liabilities and abilities to sue, ........................................................ Therefore, AT may only enforce covenants in a legal lease. <br /> AL, on the other hand, has the ability to sue pursuant to S141 LPA 1925, on covenants in all leases which have reference to the subject matter of the lease pursuant to S142 LPA, which includes legal leases, equitable leases and oral leases................... This shows that L has a wider scope to sue while T has a limited scope to sue.<br /><br />So the weak point is that if there is an equitable lease, viz no privity of estate between the AL and AT, the AT is not bound by the obligation of covenant. According to your words and the rule of Spencer's case, there must be a legal lease for the burden of covenant (assuming it is "touch and concern with the land") passed to AT. Consequently, how come the AL can sue AT in an equitable lease in the circumstance in which the AT has no obligation to perform the covenant? The only way that AL can protect himself is by seeking injunction against AT preventing any breach of the restrictive covenant under the Tulk rule.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17855719263226242943noreply@blogger.com