Image from Google Jackets

Tootal Clothing Ltd v Guinea Properties Management Ltd

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (1992) 41 EG 117-118(2)Publication details: 1992Subject(s): Summary: CA 4 June 1992. In the summer of 1990 the respondent, G, and the appellant, T, were negotiating the lease on commercial premises to be granted by G as landlord to T as tenant. Terms agreed included that T were to carry out shop fitting works, T was to have a rent-free period of three months to carry out the said works and that on completion of the work G would pay T £30,000 towards the cost. T completed the work and applied for the money. G refused on the grounds that under Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 recovery was barred because the agreement was part of the consideration for acceptance of the lease by T and was therefore a land contract which did not satisfy the formality requirements of the Act. This was accepted by the court. T appealed. This was allowed on the grounds that the Act is only of relevance to executory contracts it has no relevance to executed contracts.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS47269 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 61316-1001

CA 4 June 1992. In the summer of 1990 the respondent, G, and the appellant, T, were negotiating the lease on commercial premises to be granted by G as landlord to T as tenant. Terms agreed included that T were to carry out shop fitting works, T was to have a rent-free period of three months to carry out the said works and that on completion of the work G would pay T £30,000 towards the cost. T completed the work and applied for the money. G refused on the grounds that under Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 s2 recovery was barred because the agreement was part of the consideration for acceptance of the lease by T and was therefore a land contract which did not satisfy the formality requirements of the Act. This was accepted by the court. T appealed. This was allowed on the grounds that the Act is only of relevance to executory contracts it has no relevance to executed contracts.