r_ */ ?>

Re Midland Railway Company Agreement 1971

3. Re Midland Railway Company`s Agreement [1971] I Ch 725 and Ashburn Anrtalt/Arnold [1988] 2 All ER 147s are expressly cancelled; Breams Property Investment v Strougler [1948] 2 KB 1 and Eker v Becker (1946) 174 LT 410 are at odds with the decision. 60. Re Midland Railway Company`s Agreement [1971] 1 Ch 725 at 732 While Lord Templeman seemed satisfied with the outcome of the Prudential decision, Lord Browne-Wilkinson disagreed. He said the outcome of the case was “unsatisfactory” and did not require the parties` agreement. He said: “No one has presented a satisfactory justification for the birth of this rule. No one has been able to indicate a useful purpose that it serves today” and he asked the legal commission to check whether the rule should continue to work in English law. 1906] 2 K.B 167, 170-171. It is interesting to note that the Irish courts do not seem to be concerned by such cases and are prepared for leases of an uncertain duration of the case in Bois v.Davis (1879) 6 L.R.

Ir. 50 found where the landlord agreed that the tenants should not be disturbed “as long as the rent he had set is paid, and as long as I [the landlord] is in possession of the premises themselves.” Such an agreement was validated, creating a tenancy agreement for the life of the tenant if the estate of the lessor lasted so long. “A five-year lease may be subject to the tenant`s right to determine whether the war ends before the five-year expiry. A lease may be concluded from year to year subject to a chained agreement on the landlord`s right to determine the lease before the five-year expiry, until the end of the war. Both leases are valid because they create a fixed term of five years. A lease could be made during the duration of the war under the tenant`s right to determine before the end of the war. A lease agreement can be made from year to year under the contribution of a large one on the right side of the lessor to determine the lease before the end of the war. The two leases would not be valid, each claiming to create an uncertain notion. A term must be either safe or uncertain. It cannot be partly safe because the tenant can determine it at any time, partly uncertain, because the landlord cannot determine it for an uncertain period. If the landlord does not admit and the tenant does not take a certain period of time, the subsidy does not create a lease…. In this case, the Court of Appeal was bound by the decisions of the Midland Railway Agreement Co [1971] 1 J.

725 and Ashburn. I think both cases were wrongly tried. A grant for an uncertain period of time does not create a lease. An uncertain grant, which takes the form of an annual lease not determined by the owner, does not create a lease. I would accept the call. 47. See Lord Browne-Wilkinson`s remarks on prudential Insurance`s unsatisfactory result: “It is difficult to think of a more unsatisfactory result or a result further from what the parties to the 1930 agreement might have envisaged. Of course, it was not an outcome that their treaty, had it entered into force, would never have been possible. If the 1930 agreement had fully entered into force, there would never have been a time when the conservation of the rest of No. 263-5 would remain without a road front. [1992] 3 All 504 to 511.512. In 1930, The London County Council leased a strip of land to Mr. Nathan through a sale and lease concession.

About David Hayden

Restaurant industry professional helping small restaurants with their training, operations, and marketing needs. Author of Tips2: Tips For Increasing Your Tips and Building Your Brand With Facebook. You can also visit my other websites and blogs at: http://www.tips2book.com http://www.restaurant-marketing-plan.com http://www.themanagersoffice.com http://www.tipssquared.com http://www.foodieknowledge.com http://www.restaurantlaughs.com http://www.tipsfortips.wordpress.com


Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter to receive updates.

Comments are closed.