| 000 | 01131cam a2200229 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ABS64699 | ||
| 008 | 011016n2001 000 0 eng u | ||
| 035 | _a(Sirsi) u115133 | ||
| 100 | _aLangstaff, D. | ||
| 245 | _aRent Reviews - is time of the essence | ||
| 260 | _c2001 | ||
| 490 |
_aCSM _bChartered Surveyor Monthly _v(October 2001) 33(1) |
||
| 520 | _aDiscusses the recent case of Starmark Enterprises v CPL Distribution Ltd. Argues that rent clauses come in many different forms and relatively minor differences in drafting can make significant differences in how they are interpreted. Illustrates that it was common for rent review clauses to provide a timetable if the tenant fails to serve a counter-notice in time. Mentions other cases where this issue has arrisen and how this applies to the Starmark case. | ||
| 590 | _aABS | ||
| 650 | _aRENT REVIEW | ||
| 650 | _aSTARMARK ENTERPRISES V CPL DISTRIBUTION | ||
| 650 | _aUNITED SCIENTIFIC HOLDINGS V BURNLEY BC | ||
| 650 | _aMECCA LEISURE LTD V RENOWN INVESTMENTS | ||
| 650 | _aRENT REVIEW CLAUSES | ||
| 690 | _aLANDLORD AND TENANT-RENT REVIEWS | ||
| 942 | _n0 | ||
| 999 |
_c68570 _d68570 |
||