Commercial Landlord and Tenant Law Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Commercial Landlord and Tenant Law - Term Paper Example He says that if Mr Jagger wants to take the room the shortest term he will agree is one year, and he requires Mr Jagger to sign an agreement (which he produces and gives to Mr Jagger). Mr Jagger likes the room, and says he's 'happy with a one-year deal', but also says he wants to look at the form of agreement and possibly take advice on it before signing it, but he does need to move in immediately. He offers Mr Richards a month rent 'upfront'. Mr Richards accepts this, and allows Jagger to move in immediately. He says, however, that Jagger's occupation will be on the terms of 'that agreement in your hand unless we agree something different', and they agree that in due course they will formalise the arrangement by signing an appropriate document. Mr Jagger looks at the agreement. It is headed 'Licence', indicates a 'licence period' of one year, a weekly licence fee of 75 and states (amongst other things) that Mr Richards is at liberty to require Mr Jagger to share the room with any third party whom Mr Richards wishes to put into occupation. Explain, by full reference to the background law, the status of the interest (if any) which Mr Jagger has in the room in Mr Richards' house and how such interest came to be (or failed to be) created and whether, in consequence, it is open to Mr Jagger to leave without further liability either immediately or at some point prior to the expiry of a year after he moved in. Answer In regards to common law, the licence is not legally binding because Mr Jagger did not sign it. Mr Jagger holds a licence to use the assigned room in Mr Richards home. A licence is only a personal permission, not transferable and is not binding. If Mr. Jaggar would be a tenant, he could have a legal estate which can be inherited or transferred, and is binding on third parties. A tenancy will have a great deal of statutory protection, particularly relating to security of tenure; a licence can be terminated easily (subject to any contractual agreement) and even the residential licensee has only minimal statutory protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, not amounting to security of tenure. Mr Jagger's interest came to be when he and Mr Richards verbally agreed to a "one year deal". A licence is merely permission to use the premise it is not a lease. If no contract were created at all, it would still be considered a licence because the grantor obtains the right to use the entire premise. The giving and accepting of rent does not define a tenancy. Since this is only a licence to use the premise Mr Jagger has no further obligation to Mr Richards. If it is a tenancy it would be created formally by deed (unless within the exceptions under Law of Property Act 1925 S.54). If

Minorities in the UK Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Minorities in the UK - Essay Example However, there are several factors which seem incomplete in the overall claim on the part of the locals. The first one is that the identity of C is known which does not violate the same point in the Act. In this vein, 187B of the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act Part 3 states: Rules of court may provide for such an injunction to be issued against a person whose identity is unknown.1 This is why the local authority made a huge mistake at imposing an illegal breach of planning toward the identified person in keeping strictly with the law. On the other hand, the fact that C bought that piece of land is more than just weighty. She must get through a host of different executive bodies to make it her private property. Thus, if the local authority disregards the fact of purchasing land, then it disregards and sincerely blames the work of officials responsible for selling land to C. All in all, it is a provoking point addressed to the overall executive branch of power. It also does harm to the democratic freedoms proclaimed and shared by the British government. As a result, it is a serious violation of the law. Regardless of the fact that C is of Roma decent, she is an owner. By and large, there is a universal norm on justifying the gist of private property and rights of individuals, namely: â€Å"Property rights† is an index of the degree to which the government enforces laws that protect private property.2 Thus, the eviction is not permissible. To say more, the case is all about some discriminatory nature nurtured highly on the part of the local authority. C wants to station her caravans in order to provide her children with suffice healthcare and education which is within easy reach. This is the next hallmark of the discussion. Once again, here is the fact of straight-forward discrimination toward Roma people in the UK. In this respect the High Court should take it into account since it would be a blame for EU and the UK, in particular. Equality in rights i s needed to keep the social equilibrium. However, it is a case for EU, as the British government lobbied on issues concerned with equal access to education, employment and housing for Roma people.3 This is why the case of C should be considered in terms of international commission on the human rights and the right for housing, in particular. What is more, the fact that C could buy the piece of the land in the London Green Belt makes it possible to suppose that she has a host of other rights. According to the ECSR and the Committee on Human Rights in Europe, the right to housing permits the exercise of many other rights – civil and political as well as economic, social and cultural rights.4 Hereby, C is eligible in taking her part while solving the issue of stationing her caravans near the local school and healthcare facilities. Roma people and other indigenous ethnical groups living in the UK are also protected by the OSCE conventions on their sustainable integration.5 Hence, it is another standpoint to think of by the High Court while considering the merits of the case. Along with the undeniable fact of purchasing and owning the land, C is allowed to share the rest of the amenities as declared by the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities which the UK belongs to.6 Thus, the UK government cannot disregard a set of obligations based on the international