A vicarious revolution
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0111) 17 March 2001, 169(1)Publication details: 2001Subject(s): Summary: In "Crane v Coal Authority" CA ruled that the Law of Property Act 1925 s79 has a wider implication than was previously thought. Describes the circumstances of the case. Traditionally, s79 was viewed as not making the burden of covenant run with the land. However, this ruling indicates that in giving a covenant in relation to his own land, an original contracting party is liable not only for its own breach of that covenant, but also for those of successors in title (e.g subsequent owners of the freehold). Also highlights other issues raised by the case.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | ABS63763 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 111538-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
In "Crane v Coal Authority" CA ruled that the Law of Property Act 1925 s79 has a wider implication than was previously thought. Describes the circumstances of the case. Traditionally, s79 was viewed as not making the burden of covenant run with the land. However, this ruling indicates that in giving a covenant in relation to his own land, an original contracting party is liable not only for its own breach of that covenant, but also for those of successors in title (e.g subsequent owners of the freehold). Also highlights other issues raised by the case.