Can you explain in simple terms why this should be?
Now according to the legal logic applied in Bocardo SA v S&M Hotels Ltd [1979] 2 EGLR 48, it was only Robinson who gave the correct answer. Strictly speaking, the need for paternal consent did not arise in the other two cases.
An informative application of the Bocardo rule can be found in Allied Dunbar Assurance plc v Homebase Ltd [2002] 27 EG 144, where an otherwise qualified covenant against subletting a 40,000 sq ft warehouse was claused with no less than three provisos: see
A related point arising out of the tenant’s unsuccessful appeal is noted in
Reverting to our teenagers, critics of the Bocardo reasoning would argue that what Jones really meant was that his father had refused to waive the homework condition.
They have a point, but would you invite Jones to your party?
Related item:
Clinton Cards (Essex) Ltd v Sun Alliance & London Assurance Co Ltd [2002] 37 EG 154
Q I am aware that a tenant’s covenant not to assign etc without the landlord’s consent is subject to a statutory qualification that such consent cannot be unreasonably withheld, and that there is a similar provision applicable to qualified covenants against alterations. However, I am told that a landlord can be as bloody-minded as he likes if the covenant is worded as a simple prohibition or if the relevant words operate as a proviso.
Can you explain in simple terms why this should be?
A Three teenagers, Smith, Jones and Robinson were asked why they could not join their friends at a Saturday night party. Each replied, “my dad wouldn’t let me”. The rule in the Smith household was no parties. Jones was not allowed out unless all school homework had been done. Robinson merely required his father’s permission.
Now according to the legal logic applied in Bocardo SA v S&M Hotels Ltd [1979] 2 EGLR 48, it was only Robinson who gave the correct answer. Strictly speaking, the need for paternal consent did not arise in the other two cases.
An informative application of the Bocardo rule can be found in Allied Dunbar Assurance plc v Homebase Ltd [2002] 27 EG 144, where an otherwise qualified covenant against subletting a 40,000 sq ft warehouse was claused with no less than three provisos: see Nothing personal Estates Gazette 6 July 2002, p139, and No red card for refusal Estates Gazette 21 September 2002, p203, for a careful analysis by Sandi Murdoch.
A related point arising out of the tenant’s unsuccessful appeal is noted in PP 2002/131.
Reverting to our teenagers, critics of the Bocardo reasoning would argue that what Jones really meant was that his father had refused to waive the homework condition.
They have a point, but would you invite Jones to your party?
Related item:
Clinton Cards (Essex) Ltd v Sun Alliance & London Assurance Co Ltd [2002] 37 EG 154
