000			01873cab a22002175a 4500
001			L146668
008			090213e20090116xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u146668
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aOrchard (Developments) Holdings Plc v Reuters Ltd _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2009
520			_aEWCA Civ 6, 16 January 2009. An appellant landlord (O) appealed against a decision that a tenant publisher (R) had given valid and effective notice to bring a commercial lease to end under a break clause. R had a break option on business premises. It sent the landlord a letter and fax saying it wanted to exercise the break, but only the fax arrived. The lease did not allow R to give notice by fax, so O did not acknowledge the fax. The six month notice period needed by R to exercise its break option passed. O acknowledged that it had received the fax. R argued that this acknowledgement validated its request to break the lease. Held: appeal allowed. The Court of Appeal disagreed with the tenant and found in favour of the landlord. It decided that O's acknowledgement after the break date had passed could not validate the earlier notice. Therefore R's lease continued and it was liable to O for the claimed rent. Yates Building Co Ltd v RJ Pulleyn and Sons (York) distinguished. The Statute of Frauds did not apply to the extant case.
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aORCHARD (DEVELOPMENTS) HOLDINGS PLC V REUTERS LTD
650	2	4	_aSTATUTE OF FRAUDS 1677
650	2	4	_aYATES BUILDING CO LTD V RJ PULLEYN & SONS (YORK) LTD
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY-COMMERCIAL PROPERTY-COMMERCIAL LANDLORD AND TENANT-BUSINESS TENANCIES
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/6.html&query=orchard+and+reuters&method=boolean _zView the report at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0 _2ddc
999			_c81235 _d81235