Break Clause wording

systo

Hello,

I have done some searches but failed to find the answer I am looking for.

We are about to buy our first home and are moving out of rented accommodation. In our contract it says:

BREAK CLAUSE: (3.7) It is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice to terminate the agreement after a minimum term of six months.

We moved into the flat on the 24th Feb 2012 so obviously 6 months on is 24th August.

We gave our letting agent notice back in June that we were moving out after 6 months (on the 24th Aug) and wanted to utilize the break clause. Initially they were fine about this but now they are saying that we can only give notice after 6 months and so would need to stay in the property until October.

So my question is who is right? As far as we are concerned we will have served the minimum term of six months by the 24th August. I think that the break clause is a little misleading and perhaps could be read either way. However, whats the point of a six month break clause if you cant break the contract at six months!? In previous properties I have always been able to move out after 6 months using a break clause (I moved a lot for work back then).

Thoughts?

Thanks

sten_super

Sounds like a fixed length tenancy for 6 months - typically the situation with these is that you can move out at the end of the 6 months, but if you stay beyond this you must give two full rental periods of notice. On that basis what they are suggesting (that the minimum stay must in fact be 8 months) sounds unenforceable to me.

pmlindyloo

systo wrote: »

Hello,

I have done some searches but failed to find the answer I am looking for.

We are about to buy our first home and are moving out of rented accommodation. In our contract it says:

BREAK CLAUSE: (3.7) It is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice to terminate the agreement after a minimum term of six months.

We moved into the flat on the 24th Feb 2012 so obviously 6 months on is 24th August.

We gave our letting agent notice back in June that we were moving out after 6 months (on the 24th Aug) and wanted to utilize the break clause. Initially they were fine about this but now they are saying that we can only give notice after 6 months and so would need to stay in the property until October.

So my question is who is right? As far as we are concerned we will have served the minimum term of six months by the 24th August. I think that the break clause is a little misleading and perhaps could be read either way. However, whats the point of a six month break clause if you cant break the contract at six months!? In previous properties I have always been able to move out after 6 months using a break clause (I moved a lot for work back then).

Thoughts?

Thanks

I would agree that you have followed the wording of the contract by giving noitce to move out at the end of the 6 months.

If what they are wanting 2 months notice at the end of the 6 months period then they should have worded it as:

After a minimum term of six months it is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice to end the agreement.

That's what I think anyway

Have you a solicitor friend who could 'translate' for you?

If not get a free first 30(?) minute interview with a solicitor.

Our CAB gives a free 15 minute interview with a solicitor so you might like to try them.

systo

Thank you very much for your answers. I do hope you are correct!

It is my intention to show this to our solicitor when we see them next but it has been nagging away at me!

I'll try and post a reply once we know for sure. Maybe it'll help someone else too.

Thanks again

princeofpounds

I think pmlindyloo might be correct.

It's a really interesting example of grammar and punctuation being important, particularly when people are using long pseudo-legalese sentences.

Look at the difference a slight change makes to the agreement:

It is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice to terminate the agreement after a minimum term of six months.

It is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice after a minimum term of six months to terminate the agreement

When a court looks at ambiguous wording like this, I think they basically try to decide what the intentions actually were when signing the contract. i.e. what would a rational person think was meant by the wording?

The fact that termination is mentioned immediately prior to six months would imply to me that termination is possible at the six month mark, even though the setence is not technically absolute on that.

Also, this is further reinforced by the fact that it says 'minimum term'. Only the tenancy can have a minimum term - the break clause does not have a term, only a point in time - and so it would be rational to interpret the minimum term of six months as applying to the tenancy.

pmlindyloo

From what I have read it is advised that when you write a break clause into a tenancy agreement you should have it checked by a solicitor to ensure that your intentions are covered by the wording.

Our tenancy agreement had a break clause. After the initial wordnig it went on to say...therefore the first date at which the tenancy may end is ......................

To be honest, I would think that the LA/LL would have difficulty proving their view point in court but who knows??????????

Best to have it checked out.

It would be very useful to have an update for future reference if you have the time.

theartfullodger

The break clause seems very badly worded, perhaps ambiguous..

IIRC when there is uncertainty on meaning of a clause in a contract it should be decided in favour of the "weaker" party, in this case you, the tenant.

I reckon btw your notice is valid. There is nothing to stop you leaving and waiting to see if they take you to court.. If you do go make sure you return keys etc, get meter readings etc and note condition of all items against original inventory BEFORE expiry date of notice, and ensure you keep copies of such stuff/get receipts/ get witnesses..

Silly landlord/agent!!

systo

Thanks folks,

I'm actually finding this quite interesting even though it could have annoying consequences. I have now put it to my solicitor who is back from holiday and will let you know what they say.

Thanks again.

theartfullodger

Is your excellent & hugely respected Solicitor a specialist in landlord/tenant law\???

If not he may, whilst being a great chap/chapess, know less than people hereabouts....

Do post his advice & best of luck!!

systo

Yes as far as I know thanks for your concern either way.

tbs624

systo wrote: »

BREAK CLAUSE: (3.7) It is hereby agreed that either party may give two months written notice to terminate the agreement after a minimum term of six months.

We moved into the flat on the 24th Feb 2012 so obviously 6 months on is 24th August.

We gave our letting agent notice back in June that we were moving out after 6 months (on the 24th Aug) and wanted to utilize the break clause. Initially they were fine about this but now they are saying that we can only give notice after 6 months and so would need to stay in the property until October.

So my question is who is right? As far as we are concerned we will have served the minimum term of six months by the 24th August. I think that the break clause is a little misleading and perhaps could be read either way.

I'd agree with your own interpretation of the clause, ie that you are required to give two months notice to be able to
"terminate the agreement after a minimum term of six months."