Licence to occupy - antiques centre, now closed - owner wants next rent paid

Fincher

I have a licence to occupy in an antiques centre, where I sell items. Monthly agreement, monthly rent, and notice in writing required  by both parties, the owner's agent called me on 20th to inform me that the centre would be closing because of the situation, with sales dropping off to nothing. I was asked by him  to pay the April rental. I have heard nothing from the owner himself. I need to know where I stand legally. Am I obliged to pay the rent when the shop is shut, with no possibility of selling anything. ? Thanks for any advice on this. 

theartfullodger

I'd not reply nor pay:  And see if they change their approach (charming, what an *rs*h*l* of a landlord) or (sorry to be blunt..) if you both survive to pursue the action...

Good luck, stay safe!

davidmcn

I don't see any reason why you ought to pay if you don't have even access to the premises.

Plenty of "big" tenants are currently withholding their rent, even though they still have occupancy of the premises, on the basis that they've got zero income while they're not allowed to trade.

greatcrested

Any contract would appear to be Frustrated through no fault of either party.

Nul & Void.

AdrianC

...or what...?

They'll take you to court for the rent they say you owe?

Fincher

Interesting comments, I hadn't thought of Frustrated contract, which might be promising.

There is a clause in the Licence agreement :

"Each provision of this Licence shall be construed as independent of every other provision of this agreement so that if any provision of this Licence is or becomes (whether or not pursuant to judgement or otherwise) illegal, invalid and/or unenforceable, that provision shall be divisible from this agreement and shall be deemed to be deleted from this Agreement and the validity of the remaining provisions shall not be affected."

To my mind this might mean that  If a shop is forbidden to open by  government law, then to open and give access to Licensees would be illegal and therefore excluded from the agreement, whereas the Licensees obligation to pay rent would still hold. Or is this an unacceptable attempt to subvert the law of frustrated contracts?

Fincher

 Just found this 1943 case which seems to answer my previous post

Fibrosa Spolka v Fairbairn [1943] AC 32

An English company which manufactured textile machinery agreed by contract dated 12th July 1939 to supply some machines to a Polish company. The machines were to be delivered in 3-4 months. £1,600 was payable up front and the balance of £3,200 payable on delivery. The Polish company paid £1000 on 18th of July on account of the initial payment due. On 1st Sept Germany invaded Poland and on 3rd Sept Great Britain declared war on Germany. On 23rd of September Orders in Council made Poland an enemy territory making it illegal for British companies to trade with Poland.
Held: the contract was frustrated as it was no longer possible to perform the contract because of the supervening illegality.