| 翻訳と辞書 |
| City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd
''City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd'' () Ch 129 is an English contract law case, regarding the parol evidence rule. It illustrates one of the large exceptions, that a written document is not deemed to be exhaustive of the parties intentions when there is clear evidence of a collateral contract. It shows that even evidence from outside a written agreement may contradict evidence inside it.
==Facts==
The lease said the tenant could only use No 4 New Cavendish Street, London, for business purposes only. Mr Mudd, the tenant was an antique dealer. He had been assured he could live in the back room of the shop and using the basement a living space as a wartime arrangement since 1941. The written agreements followed from 1943 and excluded using the premises to live since 1947. In 1957, after some changes of landlord and caution of surveyors, the new landlord tried to eject Mr Mudd. Mr Mudd refused to leave and was brought to court.
Counsel for the landlord (City and Westminster Properties) argued that reasonable notice was being given and therefore it could not fall within the ''High Trees case''. Mr Mudd had no right to remain.
抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』
■ウィキペディアで「City and Westminster Properties (1934) Ltd v Mudd」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|