The optional extras
Series: Estates Gazette ; (0510) 12 March 2005, 153(1)Publication details: 2005Subject(s): Summary: Discusses the unexpected consequences of options in leases, as shown by two recent cases. In "BP Oil UK Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank plc" ([2004] EWCA Civ 1710; [2205] 10 EG 156 (Abs68748)) the dispute involved the interpretation of a put option agreement and whether the appellants could force the respondent to take back the lease of the premises. "Harbour Estates Ltd v HSBC Bank plc" ([2004] EWHC 1714; [2004] 32 EG 62 (CS)) (Abs68746) considered whether an assignee of a lease could exercise a tenant's right to break. The options in both cases were not standard as each provision was tailored to meet the special commercial requirements of the parties.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Journal article | London Journal article | L129237 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 129237-1001 |
Discusses the unexpected consequences of options in leases, as shown by two recent cases. In "BP Oil UK Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank plc" ([2004] EWCA Civ 1710; [2205] 10 EG 156 (Abs68748)) the dispute involved the interpretation of a put option agreement and whether the appellants could force the respondent to take back the lease of the premises. "Harbour Estates Ltd v HSBC Bank plc" ([2004] EWHC 1714; [2004] 32 EG 62 (CS)) (Abs68746) considered whether an assignee of a lease could exercise a tenant's right to break. The options in both cases were not standard as each provision was tailored to meet the special commercial requirements of the parties.