Facts
- The case concerned the enforcement of a covenant made in a deed relating to property use.
- The plaintiff, as original covenantee, sought to enforce a covenant against the defendant after the benefit of the covenant had been assigned to a third party.
- The covenant touched and concerned the land and was created in a property transaction.
- The dispute centered on whether the original covenantee retained the right to enforce the covenant even after its benefit was assigned.
Issues
- Whether the original covenantee could enforce a covenant directly against the covenantor after assigning its benefit to a third party.
- Under what conditions direct action by the original covenantee is permissible when the covenant relates to property.
- Whether enforcing the covenant after assignment would prejudice the rights of third parties who acquired an interest in the property.
Decision
- The court held that the original covenantee retained the right to enforce the covenant against the covenantor, provided certain requirements were met.
- It was found that the covenant touched and concerned the land and there was privity of estate between the original parties.
- Direct enforcement was permitted as long as it did not prejudice the rights of third parties who had acquired interests in the property.
- The intention of the original parties to allow enforcement by the original covenantee was respected.
Legal Principles
- A covenant may be enforced by the original covenantee against the covenantor even after the benefit is assigned to a third party, under certain conditions.
- There must be a valid and enforceable covenant created by deed, touching and concerning the land.
- Privity of estate between the original parties is required.
- The assignment of the benefit must be lawful and properly executed.
- Rights of third parties must not be prejudiced by such enforcement.
- The doctrine of privity of contract generally limits enforcement to parties but allows exceptions for covenants running with the land.
Conclusion
Lloyds v Harper (1880) 16 Ch D 290 is a significant case clarifying that original covenantees may enforce covenants notwithstanding assignment, so long as conditions concerning privity, the nature of the covenant, and the protection of third-party rights are satisfied. This decision remains a fundamental point of reference in the law of contract and property regarding the enforcement of covenants.