| 000 | 01073cab a2200253 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS45743 | ||
| 008 | 090401t1992 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u54865 | ||
| 041 | _aeng | ||
| 245 | _aUser at rent review | ||
| 260 | _c1992 | ||
| 350 | _a0 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(9202) 18 January 1992, 181(1) |
||
| 520 | _aUser provisions in a lease are often the cause of dispute when rent is reviewed, and more often than not, the argument is over potential rather than actual uses. This Legal Notes discusses four cases where disagreement has led to court action; two where the tenant user had unwittingly been named, whereas the others arose over the interpretation of user restriction. | ||
| 650 | _aMARS SECURITY LTD V OBRIEN | ||
| 650 | _aORCHID LODGE (UK) LTD V EXTEL COMPUTING LTD | ||
| 650 | _aPOST OFFICE COUNTERS LTD V HARLOW DC | ||
| 650 | _aRENT REVIEWS | ||
| 650 | _aSKILLION PLC V KELTEC INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH LTD | ||
| 650 | _aUSER CLAUSES | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 948 | _c04/03/1997 | ||
| 999 |
_c33616 _d33616 |
||