To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library





  1. Lenox was the owner of a commercial building which he leased to Ashdown for use as a retail shoe store for a period of five years. In the lease, Ashdown covenanted not to assign the premises without Lenox’s written consent. A clause of the lease reserved Lenox’s right to terminate the lease in the event of a breach of this covenant. Two years after Ashdown began occupancy, he sold the business to Boyer, his store manager. After obtaining Lenox’s written consent, Ashdown assigned the balance of the lease to Boyer. Boyer operated the shoe store for several months and then sold it to Cole. As part of the sale, Boyer executed a document purporting to transfer to Cole all remaining rights under the lease. Boyer did not obtain Lenox’s permission for this transfer. When Lenox learned of this transfer to Cole, he instituted a proceeding in which he sought Cole’s eviction on the ground that the covenant not to assign had been violated.

Which of the following best states how the court will probably rule in Lenox’s action?

(A) The covenant against assignment is void as a restraint against alienation.

(B) Lenox’s only remedy is an action against Boyer for damages resulting from breach of the covenant.

(C) Lenox waived his rights under the covenant by consenting to the assignment by Ashdown to Boyer.

(D) The transfer by Boyer to Cole was not an assignment but a sublease.

Questions 19-20 are based on the following fact situation.

Owsley was the owner of a large tract of realty with its southernmost boundary fronting on a public road. Owsley divided the tract into two parcels, one to the north of the other. Owsley named the southernmost parcel, which fronted on the public road, Southacre. He named the northernmost parcel Northacre, and sold it to Archer. Northacre did not have road frontage, and was accessible only by a visible dirt road which crossed Southacre. The deed by which Owsley conveyed Northacre to Archer contained language granting a right-of-way easement over the dirt road. Several years after purchasing Northacre, Archer purchased Southacre from Owsley. Archer never occupied Northacre and never used the dirt road which crossed Southacre.

  1. Assume for the purposes of this question only that Archer subsequently sold Northacre to Barnhart by a deed which made no mention of a right-of-way easement across Southacre. If Barnhart claims that he received a right-of-way easement over Southacre, which of the following would be Barnhart’s best argument in support of that claim?

(A) The visible dirt road across Southacre which provided access to Northacre was a quasi-easement.

(B) Since there was no other access to Northacre, Barnhart received an easement by implied reservation.

(C) Since there was no other access to Northacre, Barnhart received an easement by necessity.

(D) The grant of a right-of-way easement across Southacre contained in the deed by which Owsley conveyed Northacre to Archer benefits all subsequent purchasers of Northacre.

Create New Group

Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following