Quirkco Investments Ltd v Aspray Transport Ltd [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2011Subject(s): Online resources: Summary: [2011] EWHC 3060 (Ch), 23 November 2011. The ability to terminate a contract may be a matter of interpretation. Considers whether defendant tenant A had successfully exercised a conditional break clause in respect of a lease on commercial premises owned by claimant landlord Q. Q contended that A's notice was ineffective because A was in breach of its obligations under the lease and so was prevented by the terms of the lease from serving a valid notice under the break clause. "Held": Court found for A. However the question whether A's lease ended on the 18 December 2010 or will continue until 2015 remains unclear.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 154579-2001 |
[2011] EWHC 3060 (Ch), 23 November 2011. The ability to terminate a contract may be a matter of interpretation. Considers whether defendant tenant A had successfully exercised a conditional break clause in respect of a lease on commercial premises owned by claimant landlord Q. Q contended that A's notice was ineffective because A was in breach of its obligations under the lease and so was prevented by the terms of the lease from serving a valid notice under the break clause. "Held": Court found for A. However the question whether A's lease ended on the 18 December 2010 or will continue until 2015 remains unclear.