In Durham Condominium Corporation No.123 v.Amberwood Investments Limited,an agreement was registered that required a fee payment and provided that this obligation was to run with the land.The Court found that this was a positive obligation requiring Durham to make payments.Such an obligation
A) would run with the land and would, therefore, bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
B) would not run with the land and would not bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
C) would not run with the land, but would still bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
D) would run with the land, but would not bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
E) is void as an illegal restraint on property and not in the interest of the public.
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q43: When a landlord seizes property left by
Q64: The case of Applewood Lane West Ltd.v.Scott
Q65: Pete is an accountant and Judy works
Q66: Maureen,who frequently developed gadgets,had an idea for
Q67: Jurg was hosting a luncheon when his
Q69: Which of the following is false with
Q70: The case of Horn Ventures International Inc.v.Horn
Q71: Which of the following is false with
Q72: Paul and Robert designed a new disc
Q73: In Spycher Estate v.J.L.Coulter Ltd.,a mobile home
Unlock this Answer For Free Now!
View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions
Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks
Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents