City and Westminster Properties Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 FACTS: The defendant was a tenant of a lock up shop and slept in the office at the back of the shop, a fact which was known to the lessor. In 1947, during negotiations for a new lease, the defendant was sent a draft of a new lease containing a covenant by the lessee 'not to permit or suffer the demised premises or any part thereof to be used as a place for lodging, dwelling or sleeping'. The plaintiff's agent told the defendant that, if he signed the lease, the plaintiff would not object to his continuing to live in the shop. The defendant therefore signed in response to this assurance. Some years later, the plaintiff sought forfeiture of the lease on the ground of breach of this covenant. HELD: [...].
Answer
As the defendant had signed the lease only because of the promise by the plaintiff's agent, he was entitled to rely on that promise as long as he was in occupation of the shop
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
City and Westminster Properties Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 FACTS: The defendant was a tenant of a lock up shop and slept in the office at the back of the shop, a fact which was known to the lessor. In 1947, during negotiations for a new lease, the defendant was sent a draft of a new lease containing a covenant by the lessee 'not to permit or suffer the demised premises or any part thereof to be used as a place for lodging, dwelling or sleeping'. The plaintiff's agent told the defendant that, if he signed the lease, the plaintiff would not object to his continuing to live in the shop. The defendant therefore signed in response to this assurance. Some years later, the plaintiff sought forfeiture of the lease on the ground of breach of this covenant. HELD: [...].
Answer
?
Tags
#contract #law #terms
Question
City and Westminster Properties Ltd v Mudd [1959] Ch 129 FACTS: The defendant was a tenant of a lock up shop and slept in the office at the back of the shop, a fact which was known to the lessor. In 1947, during negotiations for a new lease, the defendant was sent a draft of a new lease containing a covenant by the lessee 'not to permit or suffer the demised premises or any part thereof to be used as a place for lodging, dwelling or sleeping'. The plaintiff's agent told the defendant that, if he signed the lease, the plaintiff would not object to his continuing to live in the shop. The defendant therefore signed in response to this assurance. Some years later, the plaintiff sought forfeiture of the lease on the ground of breach of this covenant. HELD: [...].
Answer
As the defendant had signed the lease only because of the promise by the plaintiff's agent, he was entitled to rely on that promise as long as he was in occupation of the shop
If you want to change selection, open original toplevel document below and click on "Move attachment"
Parent (intermediate) annotation
Open it plaintiff would not object to his continuing to live in the shop. The defendant therefore signed in response to this assurance. Some years later, the plaintiff sought forfeiture of the lease on the ground of breach of this covenant. HELD: <span>As the defendant had signed the lease only because of the promise by the plaintiff's agent, he was entitled to rely on that promise as long as he was in occupation of the shop. <span><body><html>
Original toplevel document (pdf)
cannot see any pdfs
Summary
status
not learned
measured difficulty
37% [default]
last interval [days]
repetition number in this series
0
memorised on
scheduled repetition
scheduled repetition interval
last repetition or drill
Details
No repetitions
Discussion
Do you want to join discussion? Click here to log in or create user.