The claimant operated by taking commission from arrangements between holiday chalet owners and tour operators, such as the respondent, for letting the chalets to holidaymakers. Under an agreement, the tour operators were prevented from renting from the chalet owners direct. The claimants asserted that the tour operator had, within the restriction period, agreed with the chalet owners for lets outside the restriction period. Did they rent the chalets when entering into the agreements with the owners, or when the lets themselves began.
Held: On its ordinary meaning the words ‘to rent’ meant the actual taking of possession. However the word had to be read in the context in which it was used, and was capable of a wider meaning, which would include the agreement to rent. That was the meaning here. The agreement treated the properties as ‘currently rented’ when subject to an agreement to let at some future time. This was not a situation where there was ambiguity, and therefore the contra preferentem rule could not be used.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lady Justice Arden And Mr Justice Sumner
Citations:
[2001] EWCA Civ 1205
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Pera Shipping Corporation v Petroship SA 1985
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147635