The legal document explains that for negative covenants (rules that prevent certain actions) to be enforced, there must be a valid, existing agreement. If the agreement is not renewed or does not exist anymore, then these covenants cannot be enforced.

It also states that renewal of an agreement, like a lease or mining rights, usually requires a proper written document. Simply exercising an option to renew does not automatically create a new, valid agreement. Instead, a formal renewal document or a court declaration is typically needed to confirm that the agreement has been renewed.

In this case, the parties argued over whether the agreement was automatically renewed after the original period ended. The court found that there was no proper, renewed agreement in writing, and no court had declared that the agreement was renewed automatically. Because of this, the covenants in the original agreement could not be enforced, and any suit trying to do so was barred by the law of limitation (time limits for legal actions).

The court emphasized that a suit based on an agreement that does not legally exist or is not properly renewed cannot succeed. Therefore, the suits filed were dismissed because they were considered to be filed too late or on the wrong basis, as the necessary legal renewal had not taken place.