82,891
edits
Hughes v Metropolitan Railway: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "Mr Hughes owned a property on the Euston road. He let it to the Metropolitan Railway. the lease had a covenant requiring the leaseholder to repair on six months notice. Hughes...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Mr Hughes owned a property on the Euston | Mr Hughes owned a property on the Euston Road. He let it to the Metropolitan Railway. the lease had a covenant requiring the leaseholder to repair on six months notice. Hughes served a notice to repair in October. | ||
In late November the Railway wrote to Hughes, saying "listen there is not much time left on the lease: do you want to buy the remainder out? Importantly, they proposed deferring repairs pending completion of the negotiaiton: | In late November the Railway wrote to Hughes, saying "listen there is not much time left on the lease: do you want to buy the remainder out? Importantly, they proposed deferring repairs pending completion of the negotiaiton: | ||