~~A VALID CANCELLATION REQUIRES MORE THAN STATING THAT ANOTHER IS IN BREACH OF THE AGREEMENT

In the case of Smith and Another vs Patsalosavis and Another.


Mr and Mrs Smith (hereinafter referred to as “S”) were the owners of a main house with a cottage on the property.  Whilst they were staying in the main house they rented out the cottage to Mrs Patsalosavis (hereinafter referred to as “P”). 

 

The rental was based on the understanding that P would effect improvements to the cottage and pay the monthly consumables and monthly tax in return for occupancy of the cottage.  The dispute however arose when the local authority was not satisfied that improvements effected by P to the cottage complied with the NHBRC standards and applicable zoning provisions. 

 

This was further substantiated by two notices by the local authority delivered to S.  S then brought an application to Court asking for the eviction of P and included a statement that they have cancelled the agreement.

 

1. The Court held that as long as the rental agreement subsisted between P & S, S could not evict P;

2. It became evident that the two notices from the local authority did not contain any detail describing in which respects the building did not comply with the required standards and the allegation by S that the non-compliance related to the improvements made by P were found to be without substance;

3. Correspondence between S & P clearly stated that the agreement would be cancelled if P did not remedy her breach and as the ambit of the alleged breach could not be determined the Court could not make a finding in this regard and had to come to the conclusion that the agreement was never formally cancelled and declined the application for eviction with costs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We Care, We Can, We Deliver