| 000 | 01482cab a2200181 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS37098 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1986 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u2293 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aLondon Regional Transport v Wimpey Group Services Ltd | ||
| 260 | _c1986 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v280 (6310) 15 November 1986, 898-900(2) |
||
| 520 | _aChD 6 October 1986. Plaintiff landlords sued defendant tenants for an alleged deficiency in the ground rent tendered for a site on which the tenants had constructed an extension to its headquarters. The tenants counterclaimed for rectification of a lease executed in 1980 between the parties in respect of the site. Both parties believed that a rent review formula expressed in a lease was to the same effect as a formula expressed verbally in the agreement to grant the lease, when in fact it was not. The formula in the agreement was more favourable to the tenant than the surveyors` formula in the lease. After a rent arbitration the landlords claimed the higher rent after applying the lease formula while the tenants tendered the lower rent produced by the agreement formula. The landlord issued a writ claiming the difference; the tenant counterclaimed. Judge held that the remedy of rectification required a mistake in the effect of the document which it sought to rectify. In this case the | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c1386 _d1386 |
||