EWCA Civ 6, 16 January 2009. An appellant landlord (O) appealed against a decision that a tenant publisher (R) had given valid and effective notice to bring a commercial lease to end under a break clause. R had a break option on business premises. It sent the landlord a letter and fax saying it wanted to exercise the break, but only the fax arrived. The lease did not allow R to give notice by fax, so O did not acknowledge the fax. The six month notice period needed by R to exercise its break option passed. O acknowledged that it had received the fax. R argued that this acknowledgement validated its request to break the lease. Held: appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the tenant and found in favour of the landlord. It decided that O's acknowledgement after the break date had passed could not validate the earlier notice. Therefore R's lease continued and it was liable to O for the claimed rent. Yates Building Co Ltd v RJ Pulleyn and Sons (York) distinguished. The Statute of Frauds did not apply to the extant case.