In June 2007, Bronca purchases a 125-year lease of 30 Houlihan Court. The lease agreement contained the following provisions:
3.11 Not to use the premises for anything other than residential purposes
3.23.3 Not to assign the whole of the premises without the prior written consent of the landlord

—and a proviso for re-entry that sets out that the landlord can forfeit the lease:
6.1.1 If any covenant on the part of the Leaseholder shall not be performed or observed

In April 2013, Bronca assigns the lease to Manny, with the landlord’s permission.

Soon after his purchase, Manny and the landlord subsequently agree to amend the lease and introduce a new leaseholder covenant “not to make any structural alterations or additions to the premises.”

In February 2023, Manny started to run a pop-up eatery from the premises. Manny had completed cosmetic work to the premises and undertook minor renovations to the kitchen and bathroom. This work totalled £10,000. In December 2024 Manny replaced a load-bearing wall with a suspended beam in order to create more floor space for his customers. The cost of this work was £40,000 and Manny has spent his entire savings in order to pay for the work. When the landlord found out about all of this in January 2025, she was outraged.

The landlord wishes to exercise her right to forfeit for the breaches. Which of the following statements applies in this scenario?

Question

In June 2007, Bronca purchases a 125-year lease of 30 Houlihan Court. The lease agreement contained the following provisions: 
 3.11     Not to use the premises for anything other than residential purposes 
 3.23.3  Not to assign the whole of the premises without the prior written consent of the  landlord 
 
 —and a proviso for re-entry that sets out that the landlord can forfeit the lease: 
 6.1.1    If any covenant on the part of the Leaseholder shall not be performed or observed 
 
 In April 2013, Bronca assigns the lease to Manny, with the landlord’s permission.  
 
 Soon after his purchase, Manny and the landlord subsequently agree to amend the lease and introduce a new leaseholder covenant “not to make any structural alterations or additions to the premises.” 
 
 In February 2023, Manny started to run a pop-up eatery from the premises. Manny had completed cosmetic work to the premises and undertook minor renovations to the kitchen and bathroom. This work totalled £10,000. In December 2024 Manny replaced a load-bearing wall with a suspended beam in order to create more floor space for his customers. The cost of this work was £40,000 and Manny has spent his entire savings in order to pay for the work. When the landlord found out about all of this in January 2025, she was outraged. 
 
 The landlord wishes to exercise her right to forfeit for the breaches. Which of the following statements applies in this scenario?

Answer

The landlord cannot exercise her right to forfeit as Manny was not an original signatory to the lease, so the proviso for re-entry does not apply to him

Answer

The breach of the covenant not to make any structural alterations or additions to the premises is so serious that the landlord has the right to forfeit at any point, in line with the proviso for re-entry

Answer

The landlord would not be able to forfeit because she has waived her right to do so as it has been 11 months since she found out about Manny's conduct

Answer

The landlord would not be able to forfeit at all because one of the breaches in question was of a "once and for all" nature and she has implicitly waived her right to breach

Answer

The landlord cannot currently exercise her right to forfeit for the breach because she has implicitly waived the right to do so. However, one of Manny's breaches is a continuing breach, so the landlord could simply seek to forfeit if she stops accepting the payment of rent or service charges from Manny going forwards

Crowdly

In June 2007, Bronca purchases a 125-year lease of 30 Houlihan Court. The lease ...

Хочете миттєвий доступ до всіх перевірених відповідей на moodle.kent.ac.uk?