PDA

View Full Version : Break clause



Tim1-
20-03-2010, 10:04 AM
Hi

I am currently in month 7 of a 12 month AST but am looking to use the break clause to end the contract in month 10. Does the following clause allow this to happen?

"It is agreed that the tenant may terminate this agreement by giving 1 months written notice to the Landlord at 5 months and on the expiry of such notice the Tenancy will come to an end without prejudice to any right of action which either or both parties may have against each other for any breach of this agreement"

Does this mean the break clause could only be used at month 5 (to leave in month 6) or can be used any time after month 5.

Thanks for your help

Lawcruncher
20-03-2010, 10:15 AM
Does this mean the break clause could only be used at month 5 (to leave in month 6)

Yes.

The only possible argument you have is that the clause does not reflect what was agreed before the tenancy began.

sundance
20-03-2010, 10:25 AM
You can leave any time you like provided you give at least as stated in lease one month notice.

mind the gap
20-03-2010, 10:31 AM
You can leave any time you like provided you give at least as stated in lease one month notice.

Why do you advise this when there is apparently no basis for it in the break clause reproduced by OP? Do you know something Lawcruncher does not?

Please explain.

sundance
20-03-2010, 12:54 PM
The law breaker is not god nor am I, read the lease one months notice is all that is required all leases have different CONDITIONS written into them in this case as stated in lease one month required.I been a landlord for more years than most people been alive the law is an ass & leases are often twisted in there wording.Designed often to confuse, in this case if it came to court a decision I would guarantee he would win the day if it came to that.Tenant always has the upper hand beleive me, in this case the lease would be well in his favour anyway.

mind the gap
20-03-2010, 13:19 PM
The law breaker is not god nor am I, read the lease one months notice is all that is required all leases have different CONDITIONS written into them in this case as stated in lease one month required.I been a landlord for more years than most people been alive the law is an ass & leases are often twisted in there wording.Designed often to confuse, in this case if it came to court a decision I would guarantee he would win the day if it came to that.Tenant always has the upper hand beleive me, in this case the lease would be well in his favour anyway.

I have indeed read the break clause part of the lease and note that it clearly states that it may be invoked by giving written notice to the Landlord at 5 months ', not 'at any point from the end of the fifth month onwards'.

It may be the case that judge would consider this misleading but what OP wants to know is his starting point, which is what Lawcruncher (who I am sure will be alarmed to see himself referred to a 'lawbreaker'!), established for him.

sundance
20-03-2010, 15:27 PM
I did not refer to the law crunsher as a law breaker I simply got his handle wrong.Niether was I aware you are in possesion of the said lease, any information or advice given on this forum is for guidance not law.I must say that if you read the lease you are better advised than I.Mine is an opinion & brought about through experience, all tenants are protected stongly by law any amount of clauses you put in a lease will not take away their rights.

mind the gap
20-03-2010, 15:55 PM
You can leave any time you like provided you give at least as stated in lease one month notice.


I did not refer to the law crunsher as a law breaker I simply got his handle wrong.Niether was I aware you are in possesion of the said lease, any information or advice given on this forum is for guidance not law.I must say that if you read the lease you are better advised than I.Mine is an opinion & brought about through experience, all tenants are protected stongly by law any amount of clauses you put in a lease will not take away their rights.
You are right in saying that a LL cannot write into a tenancy agreement clauses which override a tenant's statutory rights or the LL's statutory obligations. There is however no statutory requirement for a break cause in an AST agreement therefore if one is included, its terms will be as described in the break clause. Within reason, they can stipulate whatever the two parties agreed before signing it.

In the case of poorly worded break clauses, the tenant's legal right to end the tenancy and at what point(s), may well be open to interpretation. I can't think though that in this case it is obscure. 'At 5 months' surely means just that?

Lawcruncher
20-03-2010, 16:26 PM
Break clauses (like options and the like) are deemed to confer a privilege. What you see is what you get - at least if it is clear. Any conditions attached and time limits must be complied with strictly. Even a day is too late if you miss a deadline; "time is of the essence." It is like this so that the party to be served with notice exercising the right knows where he stands.

sundance
20-03-2010, 16:37 PM
He can leave any time he wishes I would like to see a case where a landlord has succesfully sued for breach of lease in cases like this.Where one judge decides what is a breach another will disagree the law as an ass LL loses every time.Can I just say in this case if he leaves a couple of months before the lease is up,I would say any reasonable LL would find this acceptable.

Snorkerz
20-03-2010, 22:36 PM
He can leave any time he wishes I would like to see a case where a landlord has succesfully sued for breach of lease in cases like this.Where one judge decides what is a breach another will disagree the law as an ass LL loses every time.Can I just say in this case if he leaves a couple of months before the lease is up,I would say any reasonable LL would find this acceptable.

It is not a matter of what 'any reasonable' landlord would find acceptable - not all landlords are decent, some don't even act within the law!

OP wanted to know their legal status. Lawcruncher (I got his/her 'handle' right 1st time out of courtesy) and Mind The Gap have given this information. You have given no explanation as to why you think the legal situation is not as they state. Perhaps you could provide some details of statute or case-law that would prove your point and over-rule the tenancy agreement? Otherwise, the TA stands and the break clause can only be activated at 5 months for departure at 6.

sundance
21-03-2010, 00:02 AM
You are suggesting I got his or her handle wrong by being discourteous,I think this a sarcastic attitude, I respect the member & is judgement or interpretation of what he thinks the law is.We all have our own veiws that is why people use this forum for help & to advise & express their views of what the law is. I also noticed Tim 1- has made little or no reply must have got fed up I am sure.Please furnish me with the case law or statute you refer to.Seeing you seem to have all the answers I would like to see these points in law.I might add no offence or discourteousness is intended to any member who have read any post or thread I have put on these forums.

Snorkerz
21-03-2010, 10:34 AM
Please furnish me with the case law or statute you refer to.Seeing you seem to have all the answers I would like to see these points in law.

No need for case law - the contract is clear enough, and as it doesn't restrict any of the tenants rights (indeed it gives extra rights) there is no law to over-rule it.


"It is agreed that the tenant may terminate this agreement by giving 1 months written notice to the Landlord at 5 months and on the expiry of such notice the Tenancy will come to an end without prejudice to any right of action which either or both parties may have against each other for any breach of this agreement"

Snorkerz
21-03-2010, 10:37 AM
You are suggesting I got his or her handle wrong by being discourteous.

Well, when you were notified of the mistake by mind the gap, you then proceeded to mis-name Lawcruncher again - only this time differently. That's either discourteous or careless - your choice ;)

Lawcruncher
21-03-2010, 11:03 AM
I cannot quote a case that says that time is of the essence in respect of exercising a notice to break. Five minutes Googling failed to turn one up. However, I did find this: http://www.lees.co.uk/business-case-study.php?iCaseStudyId=52 Scroll down to "time of the essence".

As has been said above, the terms of a break clause are purely a matter of contract. Whilst in some cases it is necessary to provide for it if time is to be of the essence, break clauses are not such a case.

This is the law. Practical considerations may also weigh in. A landlord faced with a tenant who has served an invalid notice who walks away is in no different position from a landlord who faced with a tenant who has walked away before the end of a fixed term. He may conclude that he should cut his losses and not pursue the tenant, but I do not think that reasonableness comes into it. A landlord is just as entitled to require a tenant to respect a fixed term as a tenant. There are of course some who think that only landlords should be bound by fixed terms, but the law has yet to come round to their way of thinking.

sundance
21-03-2010, 11:52 AM
Well, when you were notified of the mistake by mind the gap, you then proceeded to mis-name Lawcruncher again - only this time differently. That's either discourteous or careless - your choice ;)

Neither just a mistake.

sundance
21-03-2010, 12:06 PM
In this day & age choice of 12 months AST often not a good choice, most people find it difficult to commit in the long term.This is partly due to the economic climate & possible change of financial circumstances,tyng somebody down to 5 m break clause is a consideration if circumstances change but inconsiderate if circumstances change later.A court of law faced with an unemployed person who cnnot honour is agreement I am sure would stand a good chance of being dealt with favourably.

Lawcruncher
21-03-2010, 13:32 PM
A court of law faced with an unemployed person who cnnot honour is agreement I am sure would stand a good chance of being dealt with favourably.

Not really. A contract is a contract. The court must decide the matter according to what the parties agreed. The position of the parties cannot be taken into account. If you agree to buy a million pound mansion and have not got the cash the court will still award the other party damages. Whether he gets them is quite another matter.

sundance
21-03-2010, 15:44 PM
Like you cannot get blood from a stone seems to me like a total waste of time in the first place.Tenant gets off favourably!

jeffrey
21-03-2010, 19:26 PM
Like you cannot get blood from a stone seems to me like a total waste of time in the first place.Tenant gets off favourably!
So what do you think the 'at five months' means, please?

sundance
21-03-2010, 22:19 PM
so what do you think the 'at five months' means, please?

end of or terminate in escence to run only 6 of 12 of contract.get out clause no need to run full duration oppertunity to break down to 6 of 12 months in this case this break clause can be used but on often confused.:d

jeffrey
22-03-2010, 09:39 AM
Your post is nonsensical. Please rewrite.

sundance
22-03-2010, 11:51 AM
You are amusing I think you must have worked it out by now.

mind the gap
22-03-2010, 14:31 PM
You are amusing I think you must have worked it out by now.

It is hard to share your optimism, in the circumstances.

sundance
22-03-2010, 17:01 PM
Explain please

mind the gap
22-03-2010, 19:31 PM
Explain please

It is hard to be as optimistic as you are that we will have worked out what you mean. (In other words, your meaning is obscure). :)

sundance
22-03-2010, 19:46 PM
Meaning meaning what?What you need is clear clarification of the meaning in question the meaning being what,you have viewed this thread or have you not?The meaning is in the thread if if you dont know by now you have lost the thread.

mind the gap
22-03-2010, 20:12 PM
Meaning meaning what?What you need is clear clarification of the meaning in question the meaning being what,you have viewed this thread or have you not?The meaning is in the thread if if you dont know by now you have lost the thread.

Very Artaudian! Just add a bit of primeval screaming and rending of garments and it will be perfect.

jeffrey
23-03-2010, 09:57 AM
end of or terminate in escence to run only 6 of 12 of contract.get out clause no need to run full duration oppertunity to break down to 6 of 12 months in this case this break clause can be used but on often confused.:d
Look: if you want our help, you need to rewrite this in comprehensible sentence form. If not, we cannot assist.

sundance
23-03-2010, 10:36 AM
Just look back Jeffrey to when the question was first asked by Tim 1 he asked if he could still use the break clause,which gave him the chance to terminate his 12 month lease with one months notice.This break clause could only be used at month 5 he had exeeded this & was now in month 7 so this is when things becme confused, however probably my fault appollogies all.

jeffrey
23-03-2010, 12:15 PM
Aha- now I understand what you're saying. Much better; thank you (and sorry to have been insistent earlier).

sundance
23-03-2010, 12:51 PM
Aha- now I understand what you're saying. Much better; thank you (and sorry to have been insistent earlier).

Thankyou for understanding.:)