Joint tenancy expires: can some of tenants leave?

[Mars Mug]

Woudn't that be Jeffrey's point a. "using its own explicit mechanism"?

[lawstudent]

Woudn't that be Jeffrey's point a. "using its own explicit mechanism"?

No - I mean in cases where there may be no explicit mechanism

[jeffrey]

'Vary by Agreement' must mean 'vary by executing a supplemental Agreement'.
Beware of the contractual consideration problem: such Agreement will be unenforceable unless it is in the form of a Deed.
This problem does not arise when using option a or option b in my post #29.

[lawstudent]

Thanks jeffrey - so you didn't really mean 'only' in your post 29 ?

[jeffrey]

Thanks jeffrey - so you didn't really mean 'only' in your post 29 ?

'Only' meant 'formally, only', there. Sorry for any confusion caused.

[lawstudent]

I'm still confused. What do you mean by 'formally, only'? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious!

[jeffrey]

I'm still confused. What do you mean by 'formally, only'? Sorry if I'm missing something obvious!

Here's a revised version of post #29; happy now?

Rent on an existing tenancy can be changed formally only
by:
a. using its own explicit mechanism (if there is one), during fixed term or thereafter; or
b. using s.13 Notice, but only if it's a statutory periodic continuation (i.e. not during a fixed term).

Informally changing rent (e.g. by L and T agreeing) runs the risk of being ineffective for lack of contractual consideraation.

[lawstudent]

Thanks Jeffrey. Happy? Delirious

[Lawcruncher]

'Vary by Agreement' must mean 'vary by executing a supplemental Agreement'.

As the old managing clerk I trained under would have said: "What is your authority for that proposition?" Is it not always the case that if a statute does not specify that something needs to be in writing that it does not need to be in writing?

Beware of the contractual consideration problem: such Agreement will be unenforceable unless it is in the form of a Deed.

I think I am going to take some convincing that that is the case. I think there are many who would be surprised to learn that a deed is required to agree an increase in rent under a periodic tenancy. I have to doubt it often happens in practice, though that is not of course conclusive that a deed is not required.

You also seem to be suggesting that, in the absence of some fresh consideration, any variation to any agreement needs to be made by deed, which I do not think can be the case.

If the original agreement is by deed, then the principle "a deed can only be varied by another deed" applies. Further, where the parties have entered into a complex deal and decide to change some of the terms, recording the changes in a deed is a wise precaution. It is a long time since I studied the law of contract, but I cannot remember any requirement that contracts not made by deed can only be varied by deed.

[jeffrey]

No, the point is that L wants T to pay the increased rent BUT how does T become bound to do so if:
a. there's no [extra element of] contractual consideration; or
b. the variation is not by Deed?

[lawstudent]

No, the point is that L wants T to pay the increased rent BUT how does T become bound to do so if:
a. there's no [extra element of] contractual consideration; or
b. the variation is not by Deed?

Presumably it's not just the L that wants the T to pay the increased rent but the T wants to pay it too (otherwise he wouldn't agree to it) and why does there need to be an extra element of consideration?

[jeffrey]

Presumably it's not just the L that wants the T to pay the increased rent but the T wants to pay it too (otherwise he wouldn't agree to it) and why does there need to be an extra element of consideration?

Because, as I thought you knew, a contract unsupported by consideration (and not in Deed format) is not binding.

[Lawcruncher]

...and why does there need to be an extra element of consideration?

The point I was going to make.

[jeffrey]

The point I was going to make.

But which you did not need to make, in the light of post #42.

[Lawcruncher]

But which you did not need to make, in the light of post #42.

But a change is not a new contract. If it were, the consideration would be the same as for the old contract.