Legal News

Agreement for surrender—vacant possession was a ‘quid pro quo’ for completion (Dreams v Pavilion Property Trustees)

Published on: 13 May 2020
Published by: LexisPSL
  • 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?
  • More...

Article summary

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. or take a trial to read the full analysis.

Popular documents