Looe Fuels v Looe Harbour Commissioners [electronic resource]
Looe Fuels v Looe Harbour Commissioners [electronic resource]
- 2008
[2008] EWCA Civ 414. Usually, agreements to make dispositions of land must be in writing. This case shows that an oral agreement may be enough for a landlord to be obliged to grant a tenant a lease. The appellant landlord harbour commissioners (H) appealed against a decision that they had orally bound themselves to grant a lease of a fuel tank to the respondent company (L), and that it was enforceable. Originally, the landlord wanted to grant a lease for fishing boats to a new tenant at a higher rent. The existing tenant claimed it had an oral agreement with the landlord to renew the lease. The landlord denied any oral agreement had been made. Held: appeal dismissed. The original judge had been entitled to conclude on the evidence that all present at a commissioners board meeting knew and understood that what they were approving was the type of facility that was going to be operated by L. An oral agreement had thus been reached. The original judge had also been entitled to hold that the agreed rent was the best rent reasonably obtainable.
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
LOOE FUELS V LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
England and Wales--1543-
[2008] EWCA Civ 414. Usually, agreements to make dispositions of land must be in writing. This case shows that an oral agreement may be enough for a landlord to be obliged to grant a tenant a lease. The appellant landlord harbour commissioners (H) appealed against a decision that they had orally bound themselves to grant a lease of a fuel tank to the respondent company (L), and that it was enforceable. Originally, the landlord wanted to grant a lease for fishing boats to a new tenant at a higher rent. The existing tenant claimed it had an oral agreement with the landlord to renew the lease. The landlord denied any oral agreement had been made. Held: appeal dismissed. The original judge had been entitled to conclude on the evidence that all present at a commissioners board meeting knew and understood that what they were approving was the type of facility that was going to be operated by L. An oral agreement had thus been reached. The original judge had also been entitled to hold that the agreed rent was the best rent reasonably obtainable.
LAW OF PROPERTY (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ACT 1989
LOOE FUELS V LOOE HARBOUR COMMISSIONERS
England and Wales--1543-