Carter would be granted relief from forfeiture as the court would weigh up the significant loss he would face in losing a lease with 100 years of the term remaining against his breaches which are, relatively speaking, causing significantly less loss to Tobias

Tobias could proceed with forfeiture even without giving Carter an opportunity to remedy the breach; his s.146 notice could plausibly assert that Carter’s use of the premises were irremediable because of the stigma caused by Carter’s actions

The courts would likely say that Tobias has implicitly waived his right to forfeit for the breaches in question as they have been happening for the last 8 years

Given that the lease contained no covenant to not use the premises for illegal or immoral purposes, Carter’s breach would be remediable, because the illegal and immoral purpose he is using the premises for is inconsequential to his breach