In Durham Condominium Corporation No

Multiple Choice

In Durham Condominium Corporation No. 123 v. Amberwood Investments Limited, an agreement was registered that required a fee payment and provided that this obligation was to run with the land. The Court found that this was a positive obligation requiring Durham to make payments. Such an obligation

A) would not run with the land, but would still bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
B) would not run with the land and would not bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
C) would run with the land, but would not bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
D) would run with the land and would, therefore, bind a subsequent owner who purchased the land.
E) is void as an illegal restraint on property and not in the interest of the public.