Topic 1 - Historical Background Flashcards
Walsh v Lonsdale
Lonsdale and Walsh had an agreement for a seven-year lease of a cotton mill. Walsh took possession before the lease was formally granted and paid rent in arrears. Lonsdale demanded a year’s rent in advance, as per the agreement, and when Walsh refused, distrained on the property.
Walsh sued, arguing he was a yearly tenant at law and could not be subject to equitable distress. Lonsdale countered that the agreement was specifically enforceable, making the equitable terms binding on Walsh, including the advanced rent.
The court ruled in favor of Lonsdale, stating that since the agreement was specifically enforceable, Walsh held the property under the same terms as if a formal lease had been granted. This meant he was subject to the advanced rent provision. The court emphasized that in equity, an agreement for a lease is as good as a lease itself.
Barry v Barry
By a deed of separation, a husband covenanted to pay his wife a certain allowance. Later, the parties entered into a written agreement, not under seal, reducing the allowance. When the wife subsequently sought to enforce the terms of the deed, her action was dismissed on the ground that, although at Common Law a contract made by deed could only be varied by another deed, in Equity a simple contract varying the terms of the deed is a good defence to an action brought on the deed, and, since the Judicature Acts, the equitable rule prevails.
Savage v Sarrough
The plaintiff leased a property to the defendant for five years under an agreement in writing but not under seal. On receiving a higher offer, the plaintiff brought an action to set aside the prior agreement as it was not under seal. Adopting the rule in Walsh v Lonsdale, the court held the prior agreement valid.
