Breaking a Tenancy

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If you want to quote me out of context thats you business.

It was in relation to this statement "The landlord is under ....is under no obligation to accept an alernative tenant that you have found. "


Now give it a little break & back to your book.

You may well find REASONABLE & UNREASONABLE cover nearly all aspects of law.

& EVERYONE still does have a duty to limit losses.... (when those losses are deemed REASONABLE) better now???......


YAWN.

:T

I think you where quite clear, its diffiult to take the sentace everyone has an obligation to limit loss out of context, its just what on says on the tin isnt it?

Thats quite right, the landlord is under no oligation to accept an alternative tenant they have found. They should consider the prospective tenant application reasonably, but the landlord is under no obligation to say yes.

Actually have you read the case you have quoted? you are aware that it considered not only the landlords obligation to market the property etc, but also their failure to accept an alternative tenant?

Your last 'sentance' appears to be just a collection of words so I wont comment needless to once again correct the first part of it;

Everyone does not have the obligation to mitigate losses.

Unless of course you have some case law that says to the contray?

YAWN 2

:T

1984ReturnsForReal_2

"but also their failure to accept an alternative tenant? "


This one comment proves you have no understanding of that judgement whatsoever.

Try reading it again...

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

"but also their failure to accept an alternative tenant? "


This one comment proves you have no understanding of that judgement whatsoever.

Try reading it again...

Sorry I dont get your point....

The First Defendant put it succinctly in her Defence: the landlords failed to instruct agents to market the premises, failed to accept the offer of a prospective tenant who wanted to take an assignment or a new lease, and failed to accept an offer from the First Defendant to negotiate payment of a consideration for a surrender of the Defendants' lease.

I think thats pretty straight forward dont you?

Do you understand what the case is about and what the outcome was? - It looks increasingly unlikley that you do considering you have posted it to defend your position that everyone has to limit their losses!

50plusabit

Yet again another thread that has left the original thread and become a argument between a couple of members.

50plusabit

Yet again another thread that has left the original thread and become a argument between a couple of members.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

50plusabit wrote: »

Yet again another thread that has left the original thread and become a argument between a couple of members.

Sorry, the guy is an idiot.

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Sorry, the guy is an idiot.

Luckly the O/P has been given the correct answers by various posters on the first page of the thread i.e. they cant break the contract without the landlords agreement without being liable for the remainder of the rent.

I always feel obliged to correct mistakes, especially when it relates to something as important as someones home.

From your lack of response to my post above, should I conclude that you have been sufficiently corrected?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Planner wrote: »

Luckly the O/P has been given the correct answers by various posters on the first page of the thread i.e. they cant break the contract without the landlords agreement without being liable for the remainder of the rent.

I always feel obliged to correct mistakes, especially when it relates to something as important as someones home.

From your lack of response to my post above, should I conclude that you have been sufficiently corrected?

:rolleyes:


You can conclude this:

1) I think you have no understanding of the judegment
2) I think your a very sad person
3) I will no longer respond to you stupid point scoring manner based on taking one post out of context
4) That I notice that this is not the first time you have behaved in this way
5) That any other conclusion I make would purely be on the basis of psychology & I dont think this forum is really suited for that.


Go play with your toys.

tbs624

50plusabit wrote: »

Yet again another thread that has left the original thread and become a argument between a couple of members.

You clearly felt strongly enough to post the same comment twice 50plusabit but if it bothers you why not simply switch to reading another thread? Your own post seems not to have contributed much by way of reply to the OP’s query.

The "discussion" around the case of Reichmann v Beveridge [2006] EWCA Civ 1659, (2007) Times, 4 January, [2006] All ER (D) 186 (Dec) hasn't IMO entirely run away from the basis of the thread.

Spoke too soon......post above not there when I started

Planner

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

:rolleyes:


You can conclude this:

1) I think you have no understanding of the judegment
2) I think your a very sad person
3) I will no longer respond to you stupid point scoring manner based on taking one post out of context
4) That I notice that this is not the first time you have behaved in this way
5) That any other conclusion I make would purely be on the basis of psychology & I dont think this forum is really suited for that.


Go play with your toys.

1) I was actually thinking that of you. Why would a person that thinks a landlord does have the obligation to mitigate their losses, use as their evidence, the most widley used piece of appeal decision case law, thats says the complete opposite?

2) Quite the opposite. Winning makes me happy:j

3) I think that would be best, your only throwing the spot light on your obvious lack of tenancy law knowledge by continuing.

4) As I said, if I find a mistake, I like to correct it. Especially when its dealing with something as important as someones home.

5) If we are looking beyond the bounds of this forum I have a quote that I thought of while responding to your fourth 'post';

"I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him."

For that, I thank you.