Chapter 13 Self-test Questions

. If we say that X and Y are in a relationship of 'Privity of Estate', what do we mean?

X and Y were the original parties to the lease.

X and Y, who may or may not be the original parties to the lease, are in a direct landlord and tenant relationship.

X owns the freehold to the land. Y occupies the land and it does not matter whether as tenant, sub-tenant, licensee, etc.

X is the head landlord, some third party (say Z) is tenant, and Y is a sub-tenant.

. Which of the following covenants by a landlord will NOT 'touch and concern the land'.

A covenant by the landlord to repaint the premises every five years.

A covenant by the landlord giving the tenant an option to renew the lease.

A covenant by the landlord giving the tenant an option to purchase the freehold.

A covenant by the landlord to supply the premises with gas, water or electricity.

. Which of the following covenants by a tenant does NOT touch and concern the land?

A covenant by the tenant to keep in repair a property he owns adjacent to the leased premises.

A covenant by the tenant of a public house to buy all his beer from the landlord brewery.

A covenant by the tenant to use the land for residential purposes only.

A covenant by the tenant to repaint the premises every five years.

. In 1992, Leroy leased Blackacre to Anastatia for 40 years.
In 1999, Anastatia assigned the lease to Basrat. In 2004, Basrat assigned the lease to Caspar. In 2015, Caspar assigned the lease to Davinder, who is now in arrears with the rent.
From whom can Leroy claim the rent?

Only Anastatia.

Only Davinder.

Anastatia, Basrat, Caspar and Davinder.

Anastatia and Davinder.

. Same facts as in Question 04. Having served the notice required by sec.17 of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenants) Act, 1995 (see 13.3.5, page 437), Leroy recovers the arrears from Anastatia. From whom can Anastatia claim indemnity?

Basrat, Caspar and Davinder.

Only Basrat.

Only Davinder.

Basrat and Davinder

. In 2000, Larry leased Greenacre to Diana for 25 years. In 2005, Diana assigned the lease to Eric. In 2010, Eric assigned the lease to Francis. On neither of the assignments did the assignor enter into 'an authorised guarantee agreement'. Francis is now in arrears with the rent. Who can Larry sue for those arrears?

Only Diana.

Eric and Francis.

Diana and Francis.

Only Francis.

. Same facts as Question 06, except that both Diana and Eric did enter into authorised guarantee agreements.
Who can Larry sue for the arrears of rent?

Diana, Eric and Francis.

Eric and Francis.

Diana and Francis.

Only Francis.

. In 2002, Larry leased a garage to Tarquin for 25 years. The lease, which was registered at the land registry with absolute title, includes an option for the amount to purchase the freehold.
In 2009, Tarquin assigned the lease of the garage to Ahmed. The assignment deed did not expressly mention the option.
Rahinder has recently bought the freehold to the garage. When he visited the premises he saw a very busy garage business with large signs saying 'Ahmed's Garage', but he never spoke to Ahmed. Ahmed wants to exercise the option to buy the freehold, but Rahinder is resisting the claim. The option was not protected by an entry of a notice on the register of title.
What is the correct legal position?

Ahmed does not own the option as it does not 'touch and concern the land'.

Rahinder is not bound as the option does not 'touch and concern the land'.

Rahinder is not bound, as the option was not protected by an entry on the register.

Rahinder is bound: the lease is post-1995 and the option is an overriding interest.

. In 1980, Larry granted to Terry a 60-year lease of Green Field. The lease includes a covenant not to build on Green Field. The lease is unregistered title. (The area in which Green Field is situated did not become an area of compulsory registration until 1988.)
In 2015, Terry sub-let Green Field to Susan for 20 years. Can Larry enforce the 'no building' covenant against Susan?

Yes, provided she had notice of the covenant when she took the sub lease.

Yes, whatever the circumstances.

Only if the restrictive covenant has been registered as a land charge at the Land Charges Department in Plymouth.

No, as there is no Privity of Estate between Larry and Susan.

. In 2000, Larash granted a 50-year lease of Yellow House to Terresa. Terresa became registered proprietor of the lease. The lease includes a covenant not to use the house for other than residential purposes. In 2017, Terresa sublets Yellow House to Seema for six years.
Can Larash enforce the 'residential purposes' covenant against Seema?

Yes, provided Seema had notice of the covenant when she took the sub-lease.

Yes, whatever the circumstances.

Only if the restrictive covenant has been protected by an entry of a notice on the register.

No, as there is no privity of estate between Larash and Seema

Quiz Content