Land Law (case study) Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Land Law ( ) - Case Study ExampleWhether a restrictive covenant could bewilder future owners of property is a matter in which judicial discretion has to be applied, based on the circumstances of the case and its healthy surroundings. However, in the leading case of Tulk v Moxhay (1832) (1848) CB 430 (HL), the facts read as follows. The owners of take in Leicester Square had covenanted with local landlords not to allow development in the park zone. However, when the park was change off, the new purchaser, albeit aware of the restrictive covenant, wished to build on it. The Court held that it would be inequitable for him to do so. . The cheek of restrictive covenant that was seen in the case of Tulk v. Moxhay 1848 and is said that the burden of a covenant which was restrictive in nature could run with the land, despite privity of contract. (Tulk v Moxhay (1848). 2006).Overriding interests Under the laws of registered conveyancing, when a person purchases a legal interest in land, he would normally be bound by any(prenominal) third company interests in that land, save and except, when it is registered, or deemed to constitute overriding interests. It has been seen that overriding interests are a significant danger zone for any purchaser of registered title, since, although it does not appear in the register, it is able to influence the title of the purchaser, whether he was aware of it or not. Currently, there are four types of overriding interests and they are with regard toLocal land charges Easement and simoleonsShort term legal leasesProperty rights of a person in actual occupation.Moreover, under Sch. 3 Para 3, the scope for only legal easements and legal acquire are available. Therefore, interalia, easement or profits endured for life of party do not constitute overriding interests and therefore do not fall within the scope of being bound by such interests.(Overriding Interests and Minor Interests Overriding interests, p.121-122). Thus, by applicati on of the higher up legal interpretation regarding interests that has been deemed to have been vested by Algernon to Chris through with(predicate) a tenant for life deal for storing fishing gear in Algernons land for life is not tenable in a Court of Law since it does not requite the criteria of overriding interests.Frank may not be bound by the interest of Beatrice. Case 3 In 2000 he granted his niece, Denise, in consideration of 5, an option to purchase number 12 for 275,000, on the endowment of one months notice, within 10 years. Laws surrounding options An option to purchase land, or chattel is documented through a covenant which facilitates the purchase of the property by the buyer to the seller within a qualify time and for a specific amount. Therefore, it could be considered to be an interest in land and needs to be protected by an entry in the Register.