Menu

Australian Property Law and Lease Contracts

0 Comment

In this regard, what Larry will be banking on is his ability to convince a court of law that Tom acted either against the law or against the agreement. In terms of the agreement between Larry and Tom, it can be proven, albeit not beyond doubt, that Tom knew all too well that he was breaching the contract. This can be evidenced by the fact that he had tried to ask Larry to allow him to change the property before altering its look. Tom acted in a way that is less than legally acceptable by setting up the meeting to discuss the matter and then choosing to go on with the repair work even before actually meeting with Larry. For this reason, Tom is in breach of the agreement between him and Larry and that shows that he had motive and intension to ignore the agreement. Apart from ignoring the agreement of the lease, Tom is also in contempt of law for the law does outlines clearly that such repairs to a leased property must not reduce the value of the property. While the law does protect the lessee from being forced to pay for any damages caused by such repairs, this must only happen within the provision of the law, which clearly stipulates that such repairs are not to be carried out, unless with an express permission by and from the owner of the property related to the case. Does Larry have the right to be compensated for the financial loss?The damages would not be limited by section 112 of the constitution unless Tom can prove himself not guilty of the breaching the contract…. This can be evidenced by the fact that he had tried to ask Larry to allow him to change the property before altering its look. Tom acted in a way that is less than legally acceptable by setting up the meeting to discuss the matter and then choosing to go on with the repair work even before actually meeting with Larry. For this reason, Tom is in breach of the agreement between him and Larry and that shows that he had motive and intension to ignore the agreement. Apart from ignoring the agreement of the lease, Tom is also in contempt of law for the law does outlines clearly that such repairs to a leased property must not reduce the value of the property. While the law does protect the lessee from being forced to pay for any damages caused by such repairs, this must only happen within the provision of the law, which clearly stipulates that such repairs are not to be carried out, unless with an express permission by and from the owner of the property. Does Larry have the right to be compensated for the financial loss? The damages would not be limited by section 112 of the constitution unless Tom can prove himself not guilty of the breaching the contract. Because the lessee did not act in accordance with the same section of property law by making repairs that were, against the spirit and letter of section 112, bound to not only significantly change the leased property but also to reduce its value, regardless of how much the reduction was, this means that therefore any further damages that can be directly associated by this act can be said to have been caused by Tom. This means that the lessee will not and must not be protected by section 112