|
''Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd''〔''Highway Properties Ltd. v. Kelly Douglas and Co. Ltd.'', () SCR 562 (Properties'' )〕 is a leading Canadian property law case concerning commercial landlord-tenant relationships decided by the Supreme Court of Canada. The decision imported the contract law concept of repudiation and recovery for prospective damages into property law. This gave landlords the right to sue a tenant for breach of a lease agreement (usually by abandonment) and recover the present value of unpaid future rent as well as losses resulting from lost business due to the tenant's breach of the lease agreement. ==Background== The landlord, Highway Properties Ltd., leased a retail location in its shopping centre to the tenant, Kelly Douglas and Co. Ltd., "to be used for grocery store and super market". The lease was agreed to on August 19, 1960, and was to take effect for a term of fifteen years from October 1, 1960. The landlord's shopping centre consisted of 11 retail spaces and the supermarket was to be the anchor tenant of the venture. Clause 9 of the lease agreement provided that the tenant carry on "its business on the said premises continuously." The premises in question was operated as a grocery store by a subtenant beginning October 20, 1960. However, the shopping centre was not successful and was never fully leased. By March 24, 1962, the subtenant gave notice that it intended to close down its business. It did so and began to remove its goods. On July 16, 1962, the landlord filed suit against the tenant. The tenant continued to pay rent while unsuccessfully searching for another subtenant. By November 22, 1963, the premises had been abandoned, and most of the other tenants in the shopping centre had also moved out. On that date the landlord took possession of the premises and attempted to find a new tenant. At trial the landlord claimed damages suffered for rescission but more importantly, also for prospective loss resulting from the respondent’s failure to carry on a supermarket business in the shopping centre for the full term of the lease.〔''Highway Properties'' at 568.〕 At issue in the Supreme Court was the prospective loss from breach of the lease agreement. 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「Highway Properties Ltd v Kelly, Douglas and Co Ltd」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|