Authorised Guarantee Agreements And Guarantors

This has a significant impact on foreign provisions that allow the lessor to control the transfer of its lease by a tenant. Business tenants often require provisions in leases that allow orders between companies in the same group without the landlord`s consent. Landlords often accept these agreements, provided that the tenant`s guarantor continues to guarantee the debts of the tenant entering into the lease. Decisions in Good Harvest and K/S Victoria Street prevent it because: landlords must ensure that any wording they use falls on the right side of the distinction between a partial guarantee and a direct guarantee, otherwise they may find that they cannot assert a right at the precise time when they need it most (in this case, when the agent and the outgoing tenant have entered the administration). The key is to ensure that the OTG always guarantees only the outgoing client`s service and not the benefit by the agent. Whereas in this case the second provision was considered an enforceable partial guarantee, we caution against using this wording for two reasons: first, because it was not clear enough to avoid a dispute; and second, for the reason below. The Coop case was complicated by the fact that there was more than one provision in the transfer licence, but the bottom line is that the lessors and their lawyers must be very careful in drawing up to distinguish between a partial guarantee and a direct guarantee, to ensure that the outgoing tenant`s guarantor always guarantees only the outgoing tenant`s benefit and not the delivery of the assignee. The second provision relates to the “guarantee and other obligations of the OTG arising from the lease,” which remain “fully effective” and are extended to the outgoing tenant`s obligations within the AGM. In accordance with section 24 of the Act, an OTG must be exempt from its existing guarantee when awarding the lease. Any attempt to extend the obligations of this bond after the transfer is not applicable. Emi Group Ltd v.

O-H Q1 Ltd [2016] EWHC 529 (Ch) was the most extreme example in which an OTG had entered into the lease and cancelled the assignment by Section 24, since the OTG as a whole led to the OTG never actually being revoked from its agreements. Although this point was raised in that case, the High Court held that the “natural effect” of the words used in the second provision was to “create a new obligation.” Given the NESS decision, it would not be surprising if this point were appealed. The Landlords and Tenants Act came into force on January 1, 1996. The law abolished the “no contract” – the relationship between the parties in a contract that allows them to sue each other, but prevents a third party from doing so – for all new commercial leases, whereas, in certain circumstances, an outgoing tenant may be obliged to guarantee his immediate assignee.

Comments are closed.