Don't gamble with words
Don't gamble with words
- 2003
- Estates Gazette (0323) 7 June 2003 133(1) .
Considers the ruling in "Procter & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton Estates plc" where the validity of notices was tested. The break clause was operated when certain properties were to be disposed of by Procter & Gamble's Cincinnati-based parent company. Various aspects were found to be wrong with the clause and the landlord challenged this in three ways. Following the example of the Mannai case in 1997, the judge found two aspects to the validity of notices including time limits and pre-conditions. The High Court ruled that the wrongly worded break clause was in fact invalid.
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTRES LTD V BRIXTON ESTATES PLC
NOTICES
BREAK CLAUSES
Considers the ruling in "Procter & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton Estates plc" where the validity of notices was tested. The break clause was operated when certain properties were to be disposed of by Procter & Gamble's Cincinnati-based parent company. Various aspects were found to be wrong with the clause and the landlord challenged this in three ways. Following the example of the Mannai case in 1997, the judge found two aspects to the validity of notices including time limits and pre-conditions. The High Court ruled that the wrongly worded break clause was in fact invalid.
PROCTOR AND GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTRES LTD V BRIXTON ESTATES PLC
NOTICES
BREAK CLAUSES