The case concerned the question whether an original lessee could enforce by injunction against a successor in title to the term, a provision in a lease precluding alteration without consent. The ground on which he sought to do so was a covenant by the successor in title in the usual form to observe and perform the covenants etc. contained in the lease. ‘There is nothing in the structure or language of the usual covenant which suggests that whilst the term is vested in the assignee the obligation to the assignor is one of indemnity, but on a subsequent assignment by him it changes into an obligation of guarantee. The single promise that the assignee and those deriving title under him would perform the covenants in the lease does not suggest that two separate obligations, different in nature, are being undertaken. The actual language used is that of indemnity: and the common understanding of conveyancers is that there exists a chain of indemnities. This established understanding of the nature of the assignee’s obligation mirrors the established understanding of the original tenant’s obligation. The original tenant’s obligation to pay rent does not become a contract of guarantee when he assigns the term.’
Warrington J
[1904] 2 Ch 376
Commonlii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Scottish and Newcastle Plc v Raguz CA 24-Jul-2003
Leases had been granted. They had been assigned to the defendant who had assigned them again. The last assignee became insolvent and statutory demands were served on the claimant under the 1995 Act for rent. The claimant paid the sums due and now . .
Approved – Butler Estates Company Ltd v Bean CA 1942
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Landlord and Tenant
Leading Case
Updated: 30 November 2021; Ref: scu.186110
