- Agreement for surrender—vacant possession was a ‘quid pro quo’ for completion (Dreams v Pavilion Property Trustees)
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What were the issues involved?
- What did the court decide?
- What was the court’s reasoning on the issue of the dilapidations payment?
- Language of the contract
- Case law
- Workability of contract
- What was the court’s reasoning on the issue of vacant possession?
- Case details
Property analysis: In proceedings by a tenant for specific enforcement of an agreement for surrender (AFS), the court decided that the tenant was obliged to give vacant possession, even though this was not expressed to be a condition precedent—it was a ‘quid pro quo’ of the tenant’s entitlement to complete the surrender. However, the dilapidations payment due was not a condition of completion.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial