000			01106cam a2200193 4500
001			WB3922-12
008			030617n2003 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u122625
245			_aDon't gamble with words
260			_c2003
490			_aEstates Gazette _v (0323) 7 June 2003 133(1)
520			_aConsiders the ruling in "Procter & Gamble Technical Centres Ltd v Brixton Estates plc" where the validity of notices was tested. The break clause was operated when certain properties were to be disposed of by Procter & Gamble's Cincinnati-based parent company. Various aspects were found to be wrong with the clause and the landlord challenged this in three ways. Following the example of the Mannai case in 1997, the judge found two aspects to the validity of notices including time limits and pre-conditions. The High Court ruled that the wrongly worded break clause was in fact invalid.
590			_aTEST
650			_aPROCTOR AND GAMBLE TECHNICAL CENTRES LTD V BRIXTON ESTATES PLC
650			_aNOTICES
650			_aBREAK CLAUSES
690			_aPROPERTY-LANDLORD AND TENANT
942			_n0
999			_c72866 _d72866