Help Needed: Promissory estoppel - "in satisfaction of the contract"

Postit

Hi all,

I'm working on a contract law assignment and basically the question relates to the Central London Property Trust v High Trees House case.

In the question there is a 12 month commercial lease between landlord and tenant. After five months, the landlord sees that business is slow for the tenants and reduces (of his own accord) the monthly rent "in satisfaction of their contract".

Subsequently, with two months remaining on the contract the landlord decides to revert the monthly rent back to the original amount.

My question is this; does "in satisfaction of their contract" mean that the tenants should only pay the reduced amount until the end of lease, or is the landlord entitled to increase the rent back to the original amount with two months left on the lease?

Thanks in advance!

Postit

Postit wrote: »

I'm working on a contract law assignment and basically the question relates to the Central London Property Trust v High Trees House case.

In the question there is a 12 month commercial lease between landlord and tenant. After five months, the landlord sees that business is slow for the tenants and reduces (of his own accord) the monthly rent "in satisfaction of their contract".

Subsequently, with two months remaining on the contract the landlord decides to revert the monthly rent back to the original amount.

My question is this; does "in satisfaction of their contract" mean that the tenants should only pay the reduced amount until the end of lease, or is the landlord entitled to increase the rent back to the original amount with two months left on the lease?

Thanks in advance!

That's not your question, that's the question. You won't get any benefit from your assignment if you don't take the time to consider the matter yourself. Law is very like maths in that regard; the correct answer isn't good enough, you must show your work and how you arrived at the answer. The ratio is more important than the actual decision.

One tip though: read High Trees again.

Postit

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not your question, that's the question. You won't get any benefit from your assignment if you don't take the time to consider the matter yourself. Law is very like maths in that regard; the correct answer isn't good enough, you must show your work and how you arrived at the answer. The ratio is more important than the actual decision.

One tip though: read High Trees again.

If you are not going to help...please don't bother with the lesson in ethics :rolleyes:

Postit

Postit wrote: »

If you are not going to help...please don't bother with the lesson in ethics :rolleyes:

It's nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with actually learning the law.

If you actually took the time to consider what I said rather than being so dismissive you'd realise I've given you the answer.

Stop rolling your eyes at people and go and actually read High Trees

Postit

Deleted User wrote: »

It's nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with actually learning the law.

If you actually took the time to consider what I said rather than being so dismissive you'd realise I've given you the answer.

Stop rolling your eyes at people and go and actually read High Trees

Stop being a busy-body know it all, and go and post in the "I've nothing else to do, except impose my overinflated morals on people who didn't ask for it in the first place" section. If there isn't one, create one and stop posting your useless thoughts on my post!

Postit

Postit wrote: »

Stop being a busy-body know it all, and go and post in the "I've nothing else to do, except impose my overinflated morals on people who didn't ask for it in the first place" section. If there isn't one, create one and stop posting your useless thoughts on my post!

Ha, fair enough mate. Best of luck.

nuac

Postit
Kayroo gave you some useful advice, which you have rudely rejected.

Consider an apology - then as advised re-read the High Trees case carefully

Postit

nuac wrote: »

Postit
Kayroo gave you some useful advice, which you have rudely rejected.

Consider an apology - then as advised re-read the High Trees case carefully

Who are you? The apology police? I'm sorry, but if someone posts a request for information here, I don't see the need to give them a moral ethics lesson if I don't agree with what, or the way they are asking it. I do what you should do, which is not post anything.

I didn't ask what you or that other numpty above think about how I should be learning. If I wanted someone to critique my learning method, I'd have gone down to the pub and asked the local bar stool know it all!

If you have something constructive to say with regard to answering the query, by all means post. If you don't, shut-up!

edanto

Granted, you're new enough to boards, but would you really be so rude to someone if you were face to face with them?

If so, you might be wise to just do that research on the case yourself, find the answer, and get used to not having any help from people, ever. Colleagues and strangers will actively avoid helping you if that's how you treat people.

If you've only learnt two things today, it's that people here won't do your homework for you and you are a rather rude person (or else in an exceptionally bad mood).

Are you surprised at either?

Postit: I gave you the answer. High Trees is a very accessible case report compared to most and can easily be read over a cup of tea. The answer is pretty much summed up in the last 5-6 paragraphs.

Why are you so angry? I never spoke about ethics or morals (wait for your jurisprudence lectures for those) I just told you that the real benefit in reading the case far outweighs any benefit you'll get from someone here giving you an answer.

nuac

Postit, chill, and do apologise to Kayroo

Soul Stretcher

As a cooling aside, I havn't opened a law book since 2002 and it is amazing how it is amazing how certain cases sound familar !! "High Tree" rang a bell and piqued my curiosity.

OP - all you have to do is Google High Trees if you don't want to actually read the case.

A 2 minute read on the Internet basically gave me the impression than Denning J (bells ringing again) held that the landlord was entitled to increase the rent back up to full price because the flats were now fully let... i.e. the reduction in rent was only intended to apply for the duration of time when the flats were under-occupied.

OP - someday YOU will be the person expected to give guidance on these matters - so the sooner you get confidence in your own research abilities, the better !!

Good Luck !

Soul Stretcher

Let us know how you get on OP.. would be interested to hear your judgement..
e.g. in your question, does the renter's business pick up 2 month's before end of lease as in the High Tress case or does the "in satisfaction of their contract" bit mean that the Landlord has agreed to a lower rent on an ongoing basis.

I havn't a clue so would be interesting to learn

Postit

Soul Stretcher wrote: »

Let us know how you get on OP.. would be interested to hear your judgement..
e.g. in your question, does the renter's business pick up 2 month's before end of lease as in the High Tress case or does the "in satisfaction of their contract" bit mean that the Landlord has agreed to a lower rent on an ongoing basis.

I havn't a clue so would be interesting to learn

Hi Soul Stretcher,

Firstly, thank you for staying on point with regard to my first post. You'd be amazed at how many opinionated ejits posted their non-related garbage before you!

The tricky bit is "in satisfaction of their contract" and whether or not that means on an ongoing or permanent basis. The question is not a carbon copy of High Trees like the aforementioned ejits seemed to think.

When I get the mark, I'll let you know!

Thanks again SS!

Postit

Postit wrote: »

Hi Soul Stretcher,

Firstly, thank you for staying on point with regard to my first post. You'd be amazed at how many opinionated ejits posted their non-related garbage before you!

The tricky bit is "in satisfaction of their contract" and whether or not that means on an ongoing or permanent basis. The question is not a carbon copy of High Trees like the aforementioned ejits seemed to think.

When I get the mark, I'll let you know!

Thanks again SS!

Wow. Stay classy folks.

EDIT: Just on the above point, you're going to spend a LONG time waiting for cases to fall hand and foot with the locus classicus in any area. The answer is in High Trees. If you haven't seen it then I'd look again.

blueythebear

Postit wrote: »

Hi Soul Stretcher,

Firstly, thank you for staying on point with regard to my first post. You'd be amazed at how many opinionated ejits posted their non-related garbage before you!

The tricky bit is "in satisfaction of their contract" and whether or not that means on an ongoing or permanent basis. The question is not a carbon copy of High Trees like the aforementioned ejits seemed to think.

When I get the mark, I'll let you know!

Thanks again SS!

Seriously, you post here, looking for information and get given the answer on a plate. Then you call people eejits for doing so? Seriously dude, read the High Trees case or google it. It would take you all of 2 minutes to find some further relevant case law on the development of the principle of promissory estoppel. From there, you have a great start to formulate your answer.

Soul Stretcher

You are right Kayroo.. a 2 min search on Google isn't really the right way to answer OP's question - that approach is reflective of my departure from the legal studies world nearly a decade ago... was just chancing my arm.. Even though I've nothing material to gain, I might actually have a read of it someday when I have the time... and a cup of tea to hand

Just want to say that I don't share OP's sentiment of other poster's being "ejits" as he so put it.

This is my first foray in the Legal Discussion forum and I'm looking forward to lurking on threads that grab my interest.

With greatest respect to those who will shine a light in the dark corners of my legal brain in the future !!

Hope everyone has a nice evening !