Question

however Black v Owen ONSC held positive covenant enforceable using "benefit and burden" principle, said Amberwood not binding because resolved ambiguity in English law had been resolved.

Answer 1

The question discusses the enforcement of positive covenants in law, referencing the principle of 'benefit and burden', cases like Black v Owen and Shelley v. Kraemer, and decisions relating to Fourteenth Amendment rights and state action when it comes to racial discrimination in property covenants.

Step-by-step explanation:

The question relates to the enforceability of positive covenants in property law, particularly referencing jurisprudence such as Black v Owen and Amberwood, as well as Supreme Court decisions like Shelley v. Kraemer (1948). The enforcement of racial covenants in real estate was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Specifically, in the case of Shelley v. Kraemer, it was established that while private agreements (such as covenants not to sell property to certain races) do not in themselves violate the Fourteenth Amendment, they cannot be enforced by state courts as this constitutes state action and therefore violates the equal protection clause. Later, in Loving v. Virginia (1967), the Supreme Court struck down a law against interracial marriage, further underpinning the principles of equal protection and the illegality of racial discrimination in contractual agreements enforced by the state.