000			01478cab a2200205 4500
001			ABS43379
008			090401t1990 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u41504
041			_aeng
245			_aAfford v Till
260			_c1990
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(1990) 35 EG 56-59(2)
520			_aCA 8 December 1989 Appeal from High Court decision on the construction of an option under a clause in a lease to purchase reversion . In 1988 the tenant`s (A) solicitors gave notice of A`s desire to exercise the option, but no deposit was paid within the three months stipulated in the option. A`s solicitors gave further such notice and enclosed a cheque for the required deposit. High Court decided that A was entitled to serve more than one notice to exercise the option. The landlord (T) contended that upon the failure of A to pay the deposit within the time-limit , the option had been exercised, the condition regarding payment of the deposit had not been fulfilled and no second notice could be served. CA held, dismissing appeal, that the option could only be validly exercised with the giving of written notice and payment of a deposit within the time-limit stipulated. Until these conditions were fulfilled, there was no contract. There was nothing to prevent a second notice. T remained
650			_aCASE LAW
650			_aFREEHOLD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c04/03/1997
999			_c26652 _d26652