000			01123cab a2200241 4500
001			X95637
008			090401t1998 xxu||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u90278
041			_aeng
245			_aLemmerbell Ltd and another v Britannia LAS Direct Ltd
260			_c1998
350			_a0
490			_aEstates Gazette _v[1998] 48 EG 188-193(6)
520			_aCA 8 October 1998. Plaintiffs L appealed against the decision that break notices issued by B as the agent of Direct were valid. They argued that there was insufficient material from which it could be inferred that they had the authority to issue break notices. In light of further evidence it was held that there was insufficient evidence to support the inference that B was the general agent of Direct. It follows that beak notices served were not valid. Appeal allowed.
650			_aASSIGNMENT
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
650			_aBREAK NOTICES
650			_aESTOPPEL
650			_aLEMMERBELL LTD AND ANOTHER V BRITANNIA LAS DIRECT LTD
690			_aLANDLORD AND TENANT-CASE LAW-BUSINESS TENANCIES
942			_n0
948			_c14/12/1998
999			_c57218 _d57218