Sood v Barker
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1991) 23 EG 112-116(3)Publication details: 1991Subject(s): Summary: CA 6 February 1991. On 20 October 1983 a lease was granted by the defendant, B, to the proprietor of a video shop , S, for nine years and under certain conditions including one restricting the use to video hire. In 1988 as the video business was not doing well S applied for and was granted a license to sell intoxicating liquor. In February 1989 B`s agents wrote complaining of a change of use without consent. Correspondence took place culminating in July 1989 with B claiming possession . At the first hearing it was held that there had been a breach of covenant and that the lease was therefore forfeit with no compensation. S appealed on the grounds that alcohol sales were less than 5% of his turnover, This was dismissed by the court. It was also held that B did not unreasonably withhold consent and no forfeiture money was due.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS44694 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 48561-1001 |
CA 6 February 1991. On 20 October 1983 a lease was granted by the defendant, B, to the proprietor of a video shop , S, for nine years and under certain conditions including one restricting the use to video hire. In 1988 as the video business was not doing well S applied for and was granted a license to sell intoxicating liquor. In February 1989 B`s agents wrote complaining of a change of use without consent. Correspondence took place culminating in July 1989 with B claiming possession . At the first hearing it was held that there had been a breach of covenant and that the lease was therefore forfeit with no compensation. S appealed on the grounds that alcohol sales were less than 5% of his turnover, This was dismissed by the court. It was also held that B did not unreasonably withhold consent and no forfeiture money was due.