1. Chicago
4 Once these two conditions had been established, when a tenant agreed to a covenant he was not just promising to keep the terms of the lease, but also guaranteeing that any assignee would also adhere to those terms; essentially accepting liability for any breach committed by his own actions or the actions of his assignees or successors. This was the case even where the tenant disposed of his entire estate, as per Thursby v Plant.5 .
More significantly, it is important to distinguish how these concepts that used to be in place have changed through the 1995 Act; it essentially removed the existing rules with Section 28(1) which introduced 'landlord covenants' and 'tenant covenants'. The requirement for touch and concern was removed in its entirety and Section 5 of the Act states that when the tenant assigns his lease, he is released from both burden and benefit of the covenants. .
This was a significant change in the law because this long standing principle was 'absence of any analysis or discussion of the underlying technical legal basis of the rule'. 6 Therefore, it can be argued to have significantly changed the liability of both the original parties to a lease as well as their successors in title. After all, the rules before were governed by statue and common law; they were extremely complicated which lead to injustice and clearly, reform was essential. .
Another aspect to discuss is the change for the original parties. In terms of the Law Commission's criticism this comes under the argument that some covenants the burden does not pass automatically to the assignee; this was due to continuing liability. This principle is founded on 'the fact that the liability of the original tenant is founded in contract' which had important consequences.7 The contractual promise between the original landlord and tenant meant either party could enforce an obligation; this principle is found in Section 79 of the LPA 1925.