The Law And Common Law

2. I will define licensing agreement: in this case we are talking about an international licensing agreement which allow foreign firms, either exclusively or non -exclusively to manufacture a proprietor’s product for a fixed term in a specific market. Licensing is a relatively flexible work agreement that can be customized to fit the needs and interests of both, licensor and licensee.

Common law rights were guaranteed by the Magna Carta or Great Charter, which were affirmed in 1215 by King John. One did not have to be born into privilege to have common law rights, however, those who were had even more rights. There were times that the king and parliament disagreed as the “king claimed larger areas of power, leading to a bitter conflict between them.” according to Benedict (p. 1). The term “common law” means “…government protection against the encroachments of the rich and powerful,” according to Benedict (p. 2).

In this case restrictions are only placed on rentals shorter than 30 days and requires the owner to reside in the house. Even with the limitations placed on Ms. Wilde the property still has value, such as selling the property or renting it longer than 30 days at a time. Justice Blackmun in dissenting in the Lucas case, states the “petitioner still can enjoy other attributes of ownership, such as the right to exclude others” (Lucas 1237). Because the property still has economic productivity, albeit with some regulation the ordinance does not invoke a taking.

The determination of whether an arrangement is or contains a lease is based on the substance of the arrangement and requires an assessment of whether the fulfilment of the arrangement is dependent on the use of a specific asset or assets and whether the arrangement

the lessee is bound to renew the lease for the remaining economic life of the goods or is bound to become the owner of the goods;

* premises licence: to use a premises for licensable activities, subject to conditions on the licence

Occupancy agreements could include tenancy agreements, licensing agreements, licences to occupy premises, and leasehold agreements.

Exclusive possession could perhaps be the ‘foundation of the lease/license distinction’. Street v Mountford is perhaps of paramount importance when analysing the concept of exclusive possession. Lord Templeman, had argued that where ‘exclusive possession’ was granted at a premise in land, for a term at a rent for a specific period, then a lease is granted. The judgment was based on whether the intentions of the parties was of significance matter thus it was stated to be a ‘licence’. It was held to be a lease. As a result, the tenant was protected by the Rent Act, which had provided the tenants with protection in the land. This is perhaps one of the most important reasons why it’s important to distinguish between a lease and a license as it

BACKGROUND FACTS: We are acting for Robert Joyce, who has two problems regarding different issues. The first problem is in relation to his company, Joyce Holdings Ltd. His company was granted a commercial lease, whereby Mr Joyce acted as a guarantor and guaranteed to take on a new lease of the premises if the company became insolvent. The company went into administration early this year. The administrators have vacated the property and ceased to take responsibility or pay rent to the landlord. They have returned the keys and surrendered the lease for no payment. The landlord has secured the premises and marketed it receiving no interest. The landlord is now requiring Mr Joyce to take a new lease of the premises under his guarantee. The second problem concerns his freehold house in Peterborough. He wishes to let this out to foreign workers (principally but not exclusively) from Poland. He is not using a letting agent as he has his own source in Poland. He is aware of the legislative requirements up until the end of 2015 and is unaware of any changes in 2016.

This Problem concerns the enforceability and remedies of leasehold covenants between landlords and tenants, and their successors in title. The ground floor lease is granted before 1 January 1996 and so the covenants are governed by a mixture of statute and common law. The first and second floor leases were granted in 2001 after the coming into force of the Landlord and Tenant (Covenant) Act 1995 and are dealt with under this statutory regime.

On the contrary, in Bruton court’s understanding of “exclusive possession” was a relative concept. Exclusive possession granted to Mr. Bruton was found based on the fact that he was not required to “share possession with the trust, the Council or anyone else”[13] and “the trust did not retain such control”[14]. Whether the grantor possesses title or not was held to be irrelevant. Nevertheless, since LQHT in fact could not exclude the true owner (i.e. the Council) from taking possession, the exclusive possession enjoyed by the “tenant” would be “only as against the grantor and not the rest of the world”[15] and practically dependent on the contractual relationship. This has received support from later cases applying Bruton. In Islington LBC v Green[16]with similar facts to Bruton, the tenant raised an argument that the

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (LTA 1954) is an important piece of legislation affecting a large number of properties and a considerable section of the community. This LTA 1954 came into operation on 1 October 1954. The act was introduced to address a chronic shortage of commercial premises, exacerbated by the bombing raids of the German air force. Tenants were vulnerable to exploitative landlords using the end of the contractual term to demand greatly increased rents for a renewal lease or to take on, without compensation, goodwill built up or improvements made by the tenant. The LTA 1954 was urgently needed to replace temporary measures enacted in 1951 shortly before the Attlee government lost office. It is worth to know the LTA 1954

A lease involves a grant of the right of exclusive possession for a certain period of time as per Radaich v Smith where it was held that whether the transaction creates a lease or licence depends on the intention of the parties regarding what relationship the lessee shall have to the land. It does not matter whether the terms ‘licensee’ or ‘tenant’ are used, as it is a matter of substance rather than form. In the present case, there is an agreement that states the duration of the tenancy as being one year and the rent as $1000 per month. Thus certainty of duration is clearly stated. It is therefore a matter of whether the right of exclusive possession has been granted. Here the tenant is entitled to uninterrupted possession for the full

Leasehold covenants are contractual obligations contained in leases, between the landlord and the tenant. There are generally 3 types:

Under IFRS, lease classification depends on whether substantially all of the risks and rewards incidental to ownership of a