000			01682cab a2200301 4500
001			ABS57166
008			090401t1997 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u79090
041			_aeng
245			_aMannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd
260			_c1997
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[1997] 24 EG 122-131; [1997] 25 EG 138-142(15)
520			_aHL 21 May 1997. The tenant (E) held two leases for a 10-year term from the landlord (M). In each lease it stated that the tenant might determine the lease by serving a notice of not less than six months expiring on the 3rd anniversary of the commencement date. E served notices expiring on 12 January 1995. M claimed that as the commencement date was 13 January 1992 these were ineffective. This was upheld up CA and E appealed. This was allowed by HL on the grounds that the purpose of a notice under a break clause must not be lost sight of. In this case it was obvious what the intention of the notice had been and a reasonable recipient would not have been perplexed by the minor error. It was also held that the rigid rule in "Hankey v Clavering" (1942 2 KB 326) should be replaced by that in "Carradine Properties Ltd v Aslam" (1976 1 WLR 442).
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
650			_aCAR PARKS
650			_aCARRADINE PROPERTIES LTD V ASLAM
650			_aCOMMENCEMENT DATE
650			_aDETERMINATION OF LEASE
650			_aEXPIRY DATE
650			_aHANKEY V CLAVERING
650			_aNOTICE PERIOD
650			_aSERVING NOTICES
650			_aTIME LIMITS
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c20/06/1997
999			_c49705 _d49705