Write a Case Note on Liverpool City Council V Irwin [1977] Ac 239.
Write a case note on Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1977] AC 239.
The appeal at the House of Lords came up on, February 16th, 17th, 18th and on the 31st of March 1977.
Liverpool City council had brought an action against the defendants, Leslie and Maureen Irwin who were tenants in a 15-story block, owned by the plaintiff. It was located on Hai Heights, in the district of Everton, Liverpool. The defendants occupied a maisonette on the 9th and 10th floors of the building.
The contract of tenancy had been a form, which basically were conditions of tenancy that set out obligations of the tenants and none of the landlord. The form did not contain the signature of the Landlord, only the tenants signed, Therefore this can be referred to as an incomplete or one-sided contract.
This lacuna in the “tenancy document” is what invites the courts to fill in the blanks in determining the intentions of the parties, and then imply terms without which the contract would fail. Thus, the courts imply terms to give business efficacy to the contract.
There are a few other tests that have been put forward for why a court would want to imply terms into a contract that is incomplete, or one that is complete but necessarily needs the input of the courts to even out the rights and obligations of both parties. Such that no one side bears the hazards, losses or gains of the transaction.
The landlord brought an action for possession to the county court, when the defendants discontinued paying their rent. The tenants counterclaimed for nominal damages. Claiming that the plaintiffs were in breach of section 32(1) of the Housing Act 1961, to keep in “proper working order” installations in the “dwelling house”, the implied covenant to maintain common parts in the possession of the landlord viz the lighting, the stairs, the lifts, the rubbish chutes built into the apartment building and also, quiet enjoyment which they were to be entitled to in any tenancy agreement. The court did an inspection of
The appeal at the House of Lords came up on, February 16th, 17th, 18th and on the 31st of March 1977.
Liverpool City council had brought an action against the defendants, Leslie and Maureen Irwin who were tenants in a 15-story block, owned by the plaintiff. It was located on Hai Heights, in the district of Everton, Liverpool. The defendants occupied a maisonette on the 9th and 10th floors of the building.
The contract of tenancy had been a form, which basically were conditions of tenancy that set out obligations of the tenants and none of the landlord. The form did not contain the signature of the Landlord, only the tenants signed, Therefore this can be referred to as an incomplete or one-sided contract.
This lacuna in the “tenancy document” is what invites the courts to fill in the blanks in determining the intentions of the parties, and then imply terms without which the contract would fail. Thus, the courts imply terms to give business efficacy to the contract.
There are a few other tests that have been put forward for why a court would want to imply terms into a contract that is incomplete, or one that is complete but necessarily needs the input of the courts to even out the rights and obligations of both parties. Such that no one side bears the hazards, losses or gains of the transaction.
The landlord brought an action for possession to the county court, when the defendants discontinued paying their rent. The tenants counterclaimed for nominal damages. Claiming that the plaintiffs were in breach of section 32(1) of the Housing Act 1961, to keep in “proper working order” installations in the “dwelling house”, the implied covenant to maintain common parts in the possession of the landlord viz the lighting, the stairs, the lifts, the rubbish chutes built into the apartment building and also, quiet enjoyment which they were to be entitled to in any tenancy agreement. The court did an inspection of
Bibliography: 1) Housing Act 1961- Section 32(1) 2) Housing Act 1961- Section 32(1)(b) 3) Lister v. Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co. Ltd. [1957] A.C. 555; [1957] 2 W.L.R. 158; [1957] 1 All E.R. 125 4) Miller V Hancock [1893] 2 Q.B. 177, C.A. 5) Moorcock, The (1889) 14 P.D. 64