Durham City Estates Ltd v Felicetti and another
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1990) 03 EG 71Publication details: 1990Subject(s): Summary: CA 14 February 1989. Dispute over the validity of a trigger notice issued by the landlords, (DC), to the tenants (F). The notice contained a discrepancy between the amount of rent stated in figures and that stated in words. F considered this made the notice bad and therefore invalid. DC issued a writ claiming rent arrears. The High Court decided that the discrepancy was a typographical error and was not misleading and decided in favour of DC. F appealed. The CA decided that the correct test had been applied in the original trial; did the notice specify the amount of rent with sufficient clarity to prevent its recipients from being misled. The CA agreed that it was, appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS42013 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 34069-1001 |
CA 14 February 1989. Dispute over the validity of a trigger notice issued by the landlords, (DC), to the tenants (F). The notice contained a discrepancy between the amount of rent stated in figures and that stated in words. F considered this made the notice bad and therefore invalid. DC issued a writ claiming rent arrears. The High Court decided that the discrepancy was a typographical error and was not misleading and decided in favour of DC. F appealed. The CA decided that the correct test had been applied in the original trial; did the notice specify the amount of rent with sufficient clarity to prevent its recipients from being misled. The CA agreed that it was, appeal dismissed.