Brewery tie
Series: Estates Gazette Case Summaries ; [1999] EGCS 140, 4 December 1999 (1)Publication details: 1999Subject(s): Summary: "Plummer v TIBSCO Ltd & another." ChD 22 November 1999. The claimant tenant (P) had been tenant of The Deers Hut public house since 1980. 23 October 1986, P took a new lease for a term of 5 years from the defendant landlord, with an option to renew for a further 5 years. Under the terms of the lease, P agreed to purchase all his liquor from T (tie conditions). In February 1989, P was released from the tie conditions relating to wine and spirits, then in December 1989 the government permitted the sale of a beer of the tenants choice on tied premises. In January 1992 P tried to exercise this option, but T maintained that under the conditions of the lease, the tie obligations still applied. The tenant accepted the offer of a new lease from another brewery, and believing he had been misled, brought action of misrepresentation. He claimed i) he was correct in believing the waiver applied the conditions of the lease and ii) if T was correct, the government were depriving tenants of the option. Held: P succeeded on the first issue, but not the second.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London News article | X103065 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 103065-1001 |
"Plummer v TIBSCO Ltd & another." ChD 22 November 1999. The claimant tenant (P) had been tenant of The Deers Hut public house since 1980. 23 October 1986, P took a new lease for a term of 5 years from the defendant landlord, with an option to renew for a further 5 years. Under the terms of the lease, P agreed to purchase all his liquor from T (tie conditions). In February 1989, P was released from the tie conditions relating to wine and spirits, then in December 1989 the government permitted the sale of a beer of the tenants choice on tied premises. In January 1992 P tried to exercise this option, but T maintained that under the conditions of the lease, the tie obligations still applied. The tenant accepted the offer of a new lease from another brewery, and believing he had been misled, brought action of misrepresentation. He claimed i) he was correct in believing the waiver applied the conditions of the lease and ii) if T was correct, the government were depriving tenants of the option. Held: P succeeded on the first issue, but not the second.