Solus agreement: does it touch and concern land?

In Caerns Motor Services Ltd v Texaco Ltd ([1994] 1 WLR 1249) a petrol supply company (Texaco) had granted leases of petrol stations. The tenants covenanted to sell ‘such brands and grades of motor fuel as shall be marketed by the landlord from time to time’. The tenants also covenanted not to sell motor fuel supplied by any other fuel supplier. Texaco sold its reversionary interest in the properties to Save (another petrol supply company). Could Save enforce these covenants? Judge Paul Baker held that the covenants did touch and concern the land. They affected the mode of use of the property and, on the facts of the case, they were not expressed or intended to be purely personal covenants. Thus, the benefit of the covenants passed to Save under the English equivalent of CPO, s. 31 (s. 141 of the Law of Property Act 1925).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: