Defendant granted Plaintiff a lease, but the formalities were never completed.
Plaintiff later tried to claim that there was no lease and therefore that he wasn’t bound by it.
However CA held that equity sees as done that which ought to be done, so that Plaintiff was subject to the terms of the lease. (NB the court doesn’t say this explicitly, but Jessel MR says that Plaintiff holds “under the same terms in equity as if a lease had been granted”.)
Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️
Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.
Get StartedThese product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.
Land Law | Leases Notes (77 pages) |