000			01261cab a2200193 4500
001			L129237
008			050404n2005 000 0 eng u
035			_a(Sirsi) u129237
100			_aMurdoch, Sandi
245		4	_aThe optional extras
260			_c2005
490			_aEstates Gazette _v(0510) 12 March 2005, 153(1)
520			_aDiscusses the unexpected consequences of options in leases, as shown by two recent cases. In "BP Oil UK Ltd v Lloyds TSB Bank plc" ([2004] EWCA Civ 1710; [2205] 10 EG 156 (Abs68748)) the dispute involved the interpretation of a put option agreement and whether the appellants could force the respondent to take back the lease of the premises. "Harbour Estates Ltd v HSBC Bank plc" ([2004] EWHC 1714; [2004] 32 EG 62 (CS)) (Abs68746) considered whether an assignee of a lease could exercise a tenant's right to break. The options in both cases were not standard as each provision was tailored to meet the special commercial requirements of the parties.
590			_aIKA150405
650			_aBP OIL UK LTD AND OTHERS V LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC
650			_aHARBOUR ESTATES LTD V HSBC BANK PLC
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-LEASEHOLD COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-COMMERCIAL LEASES
942			_n0
999			_c75010 _d75010