Question

***

In this instance, the new buyer is not entitled to be unjustly enriched for the prior owner's breach of the covenant against encumbrances when the new buyer agrees in the purchase agreement to take title subject to the encumbrance

Answer 1

The question falls under the domain of Law at the college level, addressing the implications of a buyer agreeing to purchase a property with known encumbrances and how the principle of unjust enrichment does not apply in such cases, as the buyer has willingly accepted these terms.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question revolves around a legal principle related to property rights and the transfer of title, specifically when a buyer agrees to purchase real estate with an existing encumbrance. Encumbrances may include liens, easements, or restrictive covenants that affect the property's use or value. The purchase agreement often stipulates the rights and obligations related to these encumbrances between the buyer and the seller.

When a buyer agrees to take the title subject to the encumbrance, they are acknowledging the existence of the encumbrance and the limitation it places on the property. According to the principles listed:

1. A person is entitled to a holding if acquired according to the Principle of Justice in acquisition.
2. If the holding is transferred from someone rightfully entitled to it, the Principle of Justice in transfer applies.
3. Entitlement to a holding occurs only through these principles.

However, the phrase unjust enrichment suggests that a buyer should not unfairly benefit from the prior owner's breach of a covenant against encumbrances. If they agreed to the encumbrance in the transaction, they do not get unjustly enriched, because their agreement to the limitation was part of the fair transfer process.