Tesco v Constain - Thomson Reuters

(1883) L.R. 22 Ch. D. 441 Page 21883 WL 19585 (CA)(Cite as: (1883) LR 22 Ch. D. 441)February 18th, 1880. From the Plaintiff to the Defendant."I hereby offer to surrender the present lease of my premises at Newtown uponyour granting to the limited company proposed to be formed to carry on mybusiness there, or to my nominees, a new lease of the premises for a term oftwenty-one years from Lady Day next for a premium of £50, but at the same rentand under the same covenants as are contained in my present lease, I guaranteeingthe payment of rent and performance of covenants."This offer was refused by the Defendant, who proposed a rent *443 of £100. ThePlaintiff then proposed a rent of £75, which was also refused.On the 1st of April, 1880, the Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff, in answer to aletter which was not produced:--"Your few lines just received. If an £80 rental will suit your views thematter may be settled at once."On the 3rd of April, 1880, the Plaintiff replied as follows:--"In reply to your favour of the 1st instant, although the rent of £80 isreally a very high one, I will surrender the existing lease as required on yourgranting a new lease at £80 a year to my nominee on the same terms in everyrespect as the present one, and I hope something will now be done at once."On the 9th of June, 1880, the Plaintiff wrote complaining of the delay, andadding, "Perhaps I had better instant my solicitors to prepare a draft lease andsend it on to your solicitors for approval, as I am now anxious to bring thematter to a close as soon as possible."On the 25th of June, 1880, the Defendant sent back the following telegram:--"Get the lease prepared for twenty-one years, and I shall bear half theexpense."Then followed a correspondence between the solicitors of the parties as to theform of the proposed lease, and on the 28th of June, 1880, the Plaintiff'ssolicitors proposed the following agreement as carrying out the intention of theparties."Mr. Brisco agrees to grant to Messrs. Williams, & Son, or their nominees, whenapplied for, a new lease of the premises now held by Messrs. Williams & Son ofMr. Brisco, situate, &c., for a term of twenty-one years at a rent of £ 80 perannum, and subject to the same covenants as in present lease, which is to bethereupon surrendered, each party to bear one-half of the expenses of carryingout the agreements. Messrs. Williams & Son to guarantee the payment of rent andperformance of covenants of new lease."The Plaintiff's solicitor further wrote on the 30th June, 1880, asking that theagreement might be made out in the name of G. Williams instead of Williams & Son,and adding, "The provision for determining the new lease at the expiration ofseven or *444 fourteen years at the lessee's option to be inserted in the newlease, as in the present one. We should be glad to know if you have preparedagreement."No agreement was, however, signed; and after some further correspondence theDefendant refused, through his solicitor, to grant a new lease to the nominees ofthe Plaintiff.The Plaintiff then brought the present action. The action was heard before Mr.Justice Kay on the 21st of February, 1882.Higgins, Q.C., and Fellows, for the Plaintiff:--Crossley, Q.C., and Laing, for the Defendant:--KAY, J.Copr. © West 2004 No Claim to Orig. Govt. Works