Thursday, June 10, 2010

An artist and a baker each owned one-story buildings on adjacent lots on a common street. A common wall which was half on the land owned by the artist and half on the land owned by the baker was an integral part of both buildings. The artist and the baker each held a recorded easement on the land of the other which was under the wall. The baker desired to add a second story to her building, and the artist and the baker entered into a written party wall agreement (which was duly recorded), for themselves, their successors and assigns, whereby the baker was permitted to increase the party wall at her cost and the artist agreed to reimburse her one-half of the cost at such time as the artist extended his building to two stories. The artist then sold her lot to a cobbler, and the baker sold her lot to a dancer.

If the cobbler now decides to construct a second story on the building and the dancer sues him for half the original cost of the wall,

A.  The cobbler will prevail because he is not in privity of contract with the dancer.

B. The cobbler will prevail because the artist’s agreement does not touch and concern the land.

C. The cobbler will prevail because the benefit of the baker’s contract is personal to him.

D.  The dancer will prevail because both the benefit and the burden of the contract between the artist and the baker run with the land.

{ 8 comments }