User clause
Language: English Series: EGCS ; (1991) 69Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: Montross Associated Investments SA v Mousaieff and another CA 27 June 1991. The lessors claimed a breach of the user clause because the tenants were not using the premises for the business of retailing jewellery, as specified in the user clause, but only for the administration of such a business conducted at another address. Appeal dismissed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| News article | London News article | WB2727-23 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 34379-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: News article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
| No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | No cover image available | ||
| WB2727-20 Repossessions | WB2727-21 Subsidence premium | WB2727-22 Cost of coastal defences | WB2727-23 User clause | WB2727-25 Repair of defective step | WB2727-26 Demand for space in Germany | WB2727-27 Hong Kong airport |
Montross Associated Investments SA v Mousaieff and another CA 27 June 1991. The lessors claimed a breach of the user clause because the tenants were not using the premises for the business of retailing jewellery, as specified in the user clause, but only for the administration of such a business conducted at another address. Appeal dismissed.