BCL Law Notes > Oxford BCL Law Notes > Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

Price V. Strange Notes

This is a sample of our (approximately) 4 page long Price V. Strange notes, which we sell as part of the Commercial Remedies BCL Notes collection, a Distinction package written at Oxford in 2013 that contains (approximately) 523 pages of notes across 153 different documents.

Learn more about our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes

The original file is a 'Word (Docx)' whilst this sample is a 'PDF' representation of said file. This means that the formatting here may have errors. The original document you'll receive on purchase should have more polished formatting.

Price V. Strange Revision

The following is a plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes. This text version has had its formatting removed so pay attention to its contents alone rather than its presentation. The version you download will have its original formatting intact and so will be much prettier to look at.

PRICE V. STRANGE FACTS The defendant, Mrs. Strange, is and was at all material times the lessee of 96 Lexham Gardens, London, for the residue of a term of 99 years from June 24, 1933. The property is divided into flats and maisonettes and the plaintiff, who is a builder, was living in the maisonette on the first and second floors, and had been so since 1966 or 1967, but his tenancy had expired in 1971 and he was holding over. He was sharing this accommodation with his brother and sister-in-law and another gentleman, which was a breach of the covenants in the expired lease, so that if he were to have a fresh tenancy this term would require to be altered. The plaintiff's position was, therefore, very insecure, but the defendant was also in trouble because the premises were out of repair and her landlords had served a notice under section 146 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The defendant did not live on the premises but at 122 Lexham Gardens. She had a friend and companion, a Mrs. Walsh, who occupied the basement flat at no.

96. The landlord's notice caused concern to the defendant, Mrs. Walsh and the plaintiff, and on the morning of Sunday, February 10, 1974, Mrs. Walsh approached the plaintiff on the subject, and as a result he went that evening to see the defendant. After some discussion, they reached an oral agreement, and the next day the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant recording what had happened, and in the fourth paragraph of that letter he said: "…in consideration of carrying out the necessary repairs with all reasonable speed, thereby putting the property into a good state of repair by effecting external repairs and decorations, including extensive repairs to the roof and by effecting internal repairs and decorations to the common parts of the property, upon the completion of these repairs, you will grant to me and I will accept, a new lease of my flat being the first floor maisonette of the above property, for a term to expire upon the expiry of your existing lease of the entire property, (less a nominal reversion) at a rent throughout of £600 per annum, and otherwise upon the terms of the previous lease dated May 31, 1966, except that the existing use of the flat is permitted, in so far as it is at variance with the terms of that lease." The evidence, as the judge found, showed that "the plaintiff carried out work of repair and redecoration to the interior of common parts of no. 96 between the middle of February and the middle of May 1974 and that since then the

****************************End Of Sample*****************************

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Commercial Remedies BCL Notes.

Related Commercial Remedies Bcl Samples: