- Published on
Norfolk County Council v. Dencora Properties (1995) CA
The defendant corporation leased certain offices to the plaintiff council.
Tenant may change the terms of the 20-year lease after ten years, but only with two years' notice to the landlord. In order to dissolve the lease after 10 years as opposed to 20 years, the council had to submit notice by March 25, 1993, as the first 10 years would expire on that date. To allow the council more freedom to decide, the council sought the landlord to change the terms of the lease in late 1992.
In response, the landlord said:
In order to assist, we are prepared to postpone the notice period to break the lease to 1995 or 1996, but not both. The two year notice must remain.
The council then wrote to the landlord:
It is difficult therefore to forecast with any precision, but doing the best I can, it would seem that to be required to vacate in March 1997 cuts it too fine, and to vacate in March 1998 may be too long. I appreciate your assistance to date and agree to the two year notice, but ask if this could be given at any time but not earlier than March 1995. We could then gauge with some accuracy when the police should vacate Dencora House…
After the landlord turned down the council's proposal, the council attempted to accept the landlord's 1998 lease break offer by giving notice in 1996. The landlord, however, stated that its previous offer was no longer valid.
As in Hyde v. Wrench (1.2.1), it was held that the letter from the council that was cited above was a rejection of the landlord's offer along with a counter offer. The council's use of the interrogatory language, "but ask if this could be given," prevented the letter from falling into the same category as a simple question as that in Stevenson, Jacques & Co v. McLean (1.2.2). Thus, no agreement to change the conditions of the lease had been made.
The defendant corporation leased certain offices to the plaintiff council.
Tenant may change the terms of the 20-year lease after ten years, but only with two years' notice to the landlord. In order to dissolve the lease after 10 years as opposed to 20 years, the council had to submit notice by March 25, 1993, as the first 10 years would expire on that date. To allow the council more freedom to decide, the council sought the landlord to change the terms of the lease in late 1992.
In response, the landlord said:
In order to assist, we are prepared to postpone the notice period to break the lease to 1995 or 1996, but not both. The two year notice must remain.
The council then wrote to the landlord:
It is difficult therefore to forecast with any precision, but doing the best I can, it would seem that to be required to vacate in March 1997 cuts it too fine, and to vacate in March 1998 may be too long. I appreciate your assistance to date and agree to the two year notice, but ask if this could be given at any time but not earlier than March 1995. We could then gauge with some accuracy when the police should vacate Dencora House…
After the landlord turned down the council's proposal, the council attempted to accept the landlord's 1998 lease break offer by giving notice in 1996. The landlord, however, stated that its previous offer was no longer valid.
As in Hyde v. Wrench (1.2.1), it was held that the letter from the council that was cited above was a rejection of the landlord's offer along with a counter offer. The council's use of the interrogatory language, "but ask if this could be given," prevented the letter from falling into the same category as a simple question as that in Stevenson, Jacques & Co v. McLean (1.2.2). Thus, no agreement to change the conditions of the lease had been made.
0 Comments