Land
If the vendor finds that he is unable to complete the sale because of a defect in his title the purchaser will only be able to claim the return of his deposit (if any) and damages for expenses incurred, not for the loss of his bargain.
This rule was abolished by the Law of Property Act 1989.
Case for a right of water as an easement (encumbrance on land).
Beachway Management Ltd. v. Wisewell 1971
A periodic payment imposed by way of rent charge to meet the cost of road maintenace pending adoption of the road by a local authority - by an estate developer upon the purchase of a house - was 'vested' even though the periodic sums to be paid were to vary by reference to the rateable value of the land
Case for a right of way as an easement (encumbrance on land).
Things beneath land belong to the owner even if he does not know of them.
A valuable tapestry does not become a fixture by being battened to a wall.
Case for the use of a wall for fixing a sign as an easement (encumbrance on land).
Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd. v. Marden 1979
It was agreed between the mortgagors and the mortgagee that copital and interest repayments would be linked to the Swiss franc.
This resulted in the mortgagors having to repay an amount in sterling considerably more than the actual amount of the loan.
The transaction was held valid.
There was nothing unconscionalbe in such an agreement: the mortgagors had entered it fully advised and with their eyes open to its effect.
However, the collateral advantage secured must be reasonable.
Street v. Mountford 1985 House of Lords
The essence of a leasehold tenancey is that it is based upon an agreement whereby it has been intended that the occupier of the premises in question should be granted exclusive possession of them for a fixed or periodic term at a stated rent.
X let a public house to Y.
He promised not to keep another public house within half a mile of the demised premises.
He was held not to be bound, as against Y's assignee, by that convenant.
This convenant clearly had no direct reference to the land demised as opposed to the business conducted thereon.
Note that on the other hand where, upon the lease of a restaurant, the tenant covenanted that X should not be concerned in the business. it was held that this covenant directly concerned the use of the premises.
Tulk v. Moxhay 1848 House of Lords
T owned Leicester Square, London; he sold the garden in the centre of the square to E, and exacted a covenant from E to the effect that both E and his successors in title would koop it in ist existing condition as an ornamental garden. T retained houses surrounding the Square. E resold the garden, and after it had passed through the hands of a series of purchasers, M bought it, knowing of the covenant. M threatened to build upon it. T sought an injunction restraining M from building.
Lord Cottenham, LC granted an injunction.
Since M had notice, his conscience was affectedby the covenant.
T had an equitable in the enforcement of the covenant.
Thus, a new class of equitable interest was created in order to supply the deficiencies of the common law: the restrictive covenant of modern law.
Formerly, the position at common law was that, since the covenant constituted a 'burden' upon the land, it could not bind a future purchaser, who could then buy 'burdened' land cheap and then make a profit by disregarding the burden. 'Privity of estate.'