«

»

Dub
10

On the basis that the lessor had the right to claim damages on the basis of his loss of rent under the tenancy agreement over the duration of the tenancy agreement, we rejected the taker`s argument that the deeder`s actions were incompatible with the rights of the taker and, therefore, we worked, regardless of its explicit terms, to hand over the tenancy contract by law. We said, „In this case, the complainant`s readmission of the property as owner and his new lease of the premises were fully in line with the tenants` rights under the tenancy agreement. The applicant exercised only the rights that were granted to him. His behaviour did not result in a surrender of the lease. The provision of the lease was valid and controlled. [Several cases.] ….“ (Id., 385.) Later, we considered that: „It does not matter that the complainant again in and out for his own bill. The terms of the lease gave him the right to do so if he wished. …“ (Id., at page 386, in italics). In this case, owner Wierda Road West attempted to impose the payment of rents of more than R8 million on tenant SizweNtsalubaGobodo after the tenant emptied the property during the tenancy and terminated the payment of the rent. The defendants do not argue for any compelling public policy reason and therefore should not maintain the provision at issue. They do not argue that the lease was a contract with liability or that their consent to its terms was obtained by fraud or coercion. In addition, practical considerations support the applicability of the clause in question. The invoice shows that the equipment of the restaurant rented here was acquired by sellers selected by the taker and the parties seem to admit that it was installed for the most part and permanently on the land rented by the taker.

Devices of this type devalue with use, are subject to heavy wear and have a relatively short lifespan. In these circumstances, attempts to lease the equipment may be unsuccessful, as provided by the counting statement itself. [16 Cal.3d 461] This issue was resolved in the case of WIERDA ROAD WEST PROPERTIES (PTY) LTD/SIZWENTSALUBAGOBODO INC, which was handed down by the Court of Appeal on 1 December 2017. [4] The lease agreement in question provides that, when re-renting or selling the leased equipment, the purchaser must pay „immediately“ the total amount of the excess of the total rent reserved (plus the cost of the new rental or sale) on the proceeds of that new rental or sale. Therefore, after completing its disposal of the equipment, the applicant now complains about the entire defect, although the duration of the tenancy does not naturally expire until 1980. We are the „First“ who can do it properly. After the sale, the applicant brought this appeal on the ground that he was entitled, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to recover the total rent reserved in the tenancy agreement, plus the costs incurred during the public sale, reduced by the total amount collected by the sale of the equipment, the rent already paid, a deposit previously paid by the defendants and a discount on the cash value of future rents.