Restrictive covenants in Xanadu

Legal scholarship is naturally inclined towards explanations and justifications of contemporary law. In the case of restrictive covenants and building schemes this has led to a distorted perception of the historical record, as revealed in recorded case reports dating from the nineteenth century. It is argued that the restrictive covenant had its historical genesis not in a response to industrialisation and mass urbanisation, but in the developments of resort towns in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, as a response to the needs of land developers. Furthermore, it is argued that a better historical understanding of these origins illuminates contemporary problems concerned with the adaptability of law and the potential roles of law in development

Claims against third-party recipients of trust property

This article argues that claims to recover trust property from third parties arise in response to a trustee's duty to preserve identifiable property, and that unjust enrichment is incompatible with such claims. First, unjust enrichment can only assist with the recovery of abstract wealth and so it does not assist in the recovery of specific property. Second, it is difficult to identify a convincing justification for introducing unjust enrichment. Third, it will work to the detriment of innocent recipients. The article goes on to show how Re Diplock supports this analysis, by demonstrating that no duty of preservation had been breached and that a proprietary claim should not have been available in that case. The simple conclusion is that claims to recover specific property and claims for unjust enrichment should be seen as mutually exclusive

Wattled plover in central Tanzania

Volume: 2Start Page: 20End Page: 2