CourtRoyal Court
Judge(Le Masurier, Bailiff and Jurats Pepin and Ryan):
Judgment Date18 July 1974
Date18 July 1974
(Le Masurier, Bailiff and Jurats Pepin and Ryan):

J.C.K.H. Valpy for the plaintiff;

B.E. Troy for the defendants.

Land Law—promesse à l'héritage ne vaut—meaning—agreement to grant conveyance or long term of years not specifically enforceable—may be actionable for damages

Landlord and Tenant—promesse à l'héritage ne vaut—applicability to lease—promise to grant long term, i.e. more than nine years, not specifically enforceable—promise to grant shorter term specifically enforceable because not héritage and especially if tenant allowed into possession in reliance on promise

Landlord and Tenant—promesse de bail—enforceability—promesse takes effect as lease itself and is specifically enforceable

LE MASURIER, BAILIFF: In the month of August, 1973, the Plaintiff caused this advertisement to be published in the Evening Post.

"Living Accommodation.

Extensive accommodation on first and second storeys.

Capable of producing a good income from up to five paying guests etc.

Local residents only.

Rent £20 per week monthly in advance.

In need of modernization.

Write to L518. J.E.P."

That advertisement was answered by Mr. Rault and he and the plaintiff reached an agreement which is summarised in a letter dated September 10th, 1973, from Advocate Valpy to Advocate Cridland, who acted for the defendant at that time. The relevant part of that letter reads:—

"The Company will grant your Client. Mr. L.R. Rault a 21 year fully repairing lease for the first and second floors of the above named property on the following conditions:—

(1) Commencing rental will be £130 per month payable monthly in advance.

(2) Rental subject to revision at three yearly intervals tied to the Jersey Cost of Living Index.

(3) The lease will be expressed to have commenced on the 1st September and that no rent will be payable for September and October.

(4) The lessee will be responsible for the Company's legal expenses for the conveyance.

(5) The rent will be payable by Banker's Order."

Those terms, with the exception of Clause (4), were accepted by Mr. Rault and a draft of the contract was prepared.

The reason why no rent was payable for the months of September and October was because Mr. Rault would have to do considerable work on the premises to make them habitable.

With the knowledge and consent of the plaintiff, Mr. Rault entered into possession of the premises on September 1st, 1973, and proceeded to carry out the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • C. Le Masurier Ltd and Clarke v Alker and Northern Inn Ltd
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 10 April 1991
    ...Gen. Workers' Union, [1989] 1 W.L.R. 939, followed. (4) Symes v. Couch, 1978 J.J. 119, distinguished. (5) York St. Pharmacy Ltd. v. Rault, 1974 J.J. 65, distinguished. Additional cases cited by counsel: Le Nosh Ltd. v. Sterling, Royal Court, April 30th, 1990, unreported. Pirouet v. Pirouet,......
  • Romeril and Others v Davis
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 13 October 1977
    ...Dormy Hotels case, called, "a faithless promisor" There are some words in the Basden Hotels case and in York St. Pharmacy Ltd. v. Rault (1974 J.J. 65), from which we may infer that the Court in those cases thought that it could and, indeed, should. But one can distinguish the York St.Pharma......
  • Taylor v Fitzpatrick
    • Jersey
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 January 1979
    ...it was able to do so, of a contract which did not need to be passed by the Court. That was the case of York St. Pharmacy Ltd. v. Rault, 1974 J.J. 65 where the plaintiff agreed to grant to the defendant a twenty-one year lease of certain property. The defendant went into possession, but the ......
  • Joyelle Anne Carry v Michael Joseph Liston and Lesley Marie Liston (nee Jebbett)
    • Jersey
    • Royal Court
    • 8 September 2017
    ...(1) JLR 370. Farley & Sons Limited v Takilla Limited (1989/22, 11 May 1989). Symes v Couch 1978 JJ 119. York Street Pharmacy Ltd v Rault 1974 JJ 65. Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co. Ltd [1982] QB 133. Amalgamated Investment & Property Co. Ltd. v Texas Commerce Internat......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT