| 000 | 00954cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | WB3733-17 | ||
| 008 | 010906n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u114459 | ||
| 245 | _aPut it into context | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aEstates Gazette _v(0135) 1 September 2001, 103(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses the decision in "Barclays Bank plc v Bee and another" (2001) where the CA ruled that the interpretation of notices depends upon their objective context. Refers to the "Mannai" principles, which are used in the "Barclays" case to invalidate a notice which at first, appeared to be effective. | ||
| 590 | _aWB | ||
| 650 | _aBARCLAYS BANK PLC V BEE | ||
| 650 | _aMANNAI INVESTMENT CO LTD V EAGLE STAR LIFE ASSURANCE CO LTD UK | ||
| 650 | _aINTERPRETATION | ||
| 650 | _aBREAK NOTICES | ||
| 650 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT ACT 1954 | ||
| 650 | _aSECTION 25 NOTICES | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c68180 _d68180 |
||