159 Contemplated use not actual useIt was not what the tenant in fact did with the land following a grazing and/or mowing agreement that determined whether or not the statutory exception operated, but what was agreed between the parties1. If, therefore, a tenant was permitted to occupy land for grazing or mowing purposes only, but in fact grew corn and intended all the time to do so, the statutory exception still operated unless it could be shown that it was the mutual intention of the parties that the land should be used for some purpose other than
It was not what the tenant in fact did with the land following a grazing and/or mowing agreement that determined whether or not the statutory exception operated, but what was agreed between the parties1. If, therefore, a tenant was permitted to occupy land for grazing or mowing purposes only, but in fact grew corn and intended all the time to do so, the statutory exception still operated unless it could be shown that it was the mutual intention of the parties that the land should be used for some purpose other than
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
0330 161 1234