covenantee

The plaintiff was the covenantee's successor, a tenant in tail.

The covenantee cannot have both the promised performance and some other performance which he agrees to accept.

In all three parts "reasonable" means providing no more than relevant and necessary protection for the legitimate interest of the covenantee.

However the courts have consistently recognised the interest that the employer or any other covenantee has in protecting business secrets.

The second occurs in those clauses which seek to circumscribe contact with those who were, for a given period, clients of the covenantee.

Because the covenant ran with the land, under section 78 Law of Property Act 1925 it could be enforced by the covenantee and successors in title.

In ICS UK Ltd v Hart such potential customers of the covenantee were held to be protectable.

In Plowman & Son Ltd v Ash the Court of Appeal granted this protection to all customers of the covenantee for 2 years.

A covenant is a type of contract in which the covenantor makes a promise to a covenantee to do (affirmative covenant) or not do some action (negative covenant).

It is generally accepted that in order to succeed on a plea of unreasonableness it is not necessary for the covenantor to show that the covenantee had acted oppressively.

More specifically, a restrictive covenant is a contract between two landowners, by which the person obtaining the promise (the covenantee) acquires the right to restrain the covenantor from putting the land to certain specific uses.

Firstly, that the acid test whether or not benefit is collateral is that laid down by Best J, namely "Is the covenant beneficial to the owner for the time being of the covenantee's land, and to no one else?"

Workforce Stability & Non-Solicitation of Fellow Employees While the intellectual "tools of the trade" which a covenantor builds are not restrictable by the covenantee, we have seen that the covenantee's business connection is so restrictable.

As covenantee under section 219 of the Land Title Act, the respondent does acquire a right of enforcement of the restrictions imposed through the charge registered against title even though the covenant is not annexed to land owned by the covenantee.

It was argued on behalf of the respondents that the doctrine applied to a covenant which was imposed for the benefit of the trade of the covenantee and which either forbids the covenantor to carry on his trade or restricts the way in which he may carry it on.

Diplock LJ said "A contract in restraint of trade is one in which a party (the covenantor) agrees with any other party (the covenantee) to restrict his liberty in the future to carry on trade with other persons not parties to the contract in such manner as he chooses".

Although it is usually true that if the interests of the covenantee and the covenantor are satisfied then so is the public interest, it is important to realise that in some cases the courts have chosen to examine the restraint primarily from the point of view of the public interest rather than from that of the parties.