He said that as a general principle, the bargain between lessor and lessee is one of long-term mutuality, and rent review clauses must be viewed in that light. There is no presumption in favour of constructing a clause so as to make it upwards only. A court will not be easily persuaded to accept an interpretation which will give the lessor a windfall in a time of recession. And the courts will surely never rubber-stamp any interpretation which clearly has the effect of unjustly enriching either party.
Thanks for the feedback. I'm very consicous of not wanting to find an answer that simply suits what I want to hear.I would take the (legal) view that the original tenant, by not actively resolving their own legal position under their own lease, entered into a side agreement with a sub tenant which, while facilitated by the Landlord, did not relieve them of their own legal obligations. And that the sub tenant, while not formally bound by the Lease and therefore cannot be held responsible into the future, would have an obligation to pay the rent up to the day they vacate.
...
Too often, a client wants you to find a reason why they are right in their way of thinking despite that having no basis in fact or reality! Its a sort of "make it legal after the event" scenario.
mf
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?