17.3.1.4. Tenancy at willA tenancy

17.3.1.4. Tenancy at will
A tenancy at will is a tenancy which can be ended at any time by either party. It is of ancient origin (Megarry and Wade, The Law of Real Property, p. 655, describe it as ‘probably the original type of tenure onto which the doctrines of estates were superimposed’), but, although it appears always to have been accepted as a form of tenancy, it has few, if any, of the hallmarks of a property interest. It is said to terminate automatically if either the landlord or the tenant dies or alienates his interest (Wheeler v. Mercer [1957] AC 416 at 427 per Viscount Simonds, who described it as ‘unlike any other tenancy, except a tenancy at sufferance, to which it is next-of-kin. It has been properly described as a personal relation between the landlord and his tenant’; and see also ibid., p. 432 per Lord Cohen), and Megarry and Wade suggest it might more properly be regarded as ‘a mere relationship of tenure unaccompanied by ... any estate or interest which can exist as a right in rem’.
At one time the tenancy at will was also said to be anomalous in that it did not
conform to the rule that the duration of a tenancy must be certain. However, there now seems no great difficulty in accommodating it within the formula for ascer- taining certainty of duration laid down by the House of Lords in Prudential: see further below.
The precariousness of the relationship created by the tenancy at will might lead one to ask why anyone would ever willingly enter into one, whether as landlord or tenant, especially since the periodic tenancy gives both parties very nearly as much flexibility (either can terminate their obligation whenever they want on giving the appropriate notice) but considerably more security (both know they will be given the requisite period of notice before their right to rent or possession, as the case may be, ends). The main reason is that statutory security of tenure for tenants generally applies to periodic tenancies but not to tenancies at will (see Wheeler v. Mercer [1957] AC 416 on the protection of business tenants under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954). Landlords who want, or are prepared to allow, someone to take possession as a temporary measure, but do not want to create a tenancy attracting security of tenure, might therefore choose a tenancy at will, and in appropriate cases (i.e. where it is clear that the tenant’s possession was intended to be temporary but there was no express agreement as to duration) the courts will infer that a tenancy at will was what was intended by them. The classic cases are where a prospective tenant has been let into occupation while the detailed terms of the lease are still being negotiated, or a purchaser let into possession before completion of the purchase, or a tenant holds over after the end of a contractual tenancy and the landlord allows him to remain temporarily, whether for humani- tarian reasons, or while negotiating terms for a new lease: see, for example, Javad v. Aquil [1991] 1 WLR 1007.

Leases and bailment 619

In addition, there are other cases where a tenancy at will arises by operation of law, most importantly where a tenant goes into possession under a lease which proves to be void (see Prudential below: if no rent was paid the tenant will be taken to have a tenancy at will – his possession has throughout been with permission, but can now be terminated or given up at will – whereas if rent was paid there will be a periodic tenancy, as we see in section 17.3.1.5 below).

Kết quả (Việt) 1:

17.3.1.4. các hợp đồng thuê nhà ở sẽMột hợp đồng thuê nhà sẽ là một hợp đồng thuê nhà mà có thể được kết thúc tại bất kỳ thời gian trong hai bên. Nó có nguồn gốc cổ đại (Megarry và Wade, luật Real Property, trang 655, mô tả nó như là 'có lẽ gốc loại nhiệm kỳ vào đó các học thuyết bất động sản đã được chồng của'), Tuy nhiên, mặc dù nó dường như luôn luôn có được chấp nhận như là một hình thức của hợp đồng thuê nhà, nó có ít, nếu có, trong những dấu hiệu của một lợi ích bất động sản. Nó được cho là sẽ tự động chấm dứt nếu chủ nhà hoặc những người thuê nhà chết hoặc alienates quan tâm của mình (Wheeler v. Mercer [1957] AC 416 tại 427 một tử tước Simonds, người đã mô tả nó như là ' không giống như bất kỳ thuê nhà khác, ngoại trừ một hợp đồng thuê nhà tại sufferance, mà nó là của thân. Nó đã được đúng mô tả như là một mối quan hệ cá nhân giữa chủ nhà và người thuê nhà của mình '; và xem cũng ibid., p. 432 cho Chúa Cohen), và Megarry và Wade cho thấy nó hơn đúng cách có thể được coi là ' một mối quan hệ chỉ của nhiệm kỳ không hộ tống bởi... bất động sản hoặc quan tâm có thể tồn tại ở dạng một ngay tại rem'.Tại một thời gian thuê nhà ở sẽ được cũng cho là bất thường ở chỗ nó khôngphù hợp với các quy tắc mà thời gian của một hợp đồng thuê nhà phải chắc chắn. Tuy nhiên, bây giờ có vẻ như không có nhiều khó khăn trong có sức chứa nó trong công thức cho ascer-taining chắc chắn của thời gian đặt do nhà của Chúa trong Prudential: xem thêm dưới đây.The precariousness of the relationship created by the tenancy at will might lead one to ask why anyone would ever willingly enter into one, whether as landlord or tenant, especially since the periodic tenancy gives both parties very nearly as much flexibility (either can terminate their obligation whenever they want on giving the appropriate notice) but considerably more security (both know they will be given the requisite period of notice before their right to rent or possession, as the case may be, ends). The main reason is that statutory security of tenure for tenants generally applies to periodic tenancies but not to tenancies at will (see Wheeler v. Mercer [1957] AC 416 on the protection of business tenants under Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954). Landlords who want, or are prepared to allow, someone to take possession as a temporary measure, but do not want to create a tenancy attracting security of tenure, might therefore choose a tenancy at will, and in appropriate cases (i.e. where it is clear that the tenant’s possession was intended to be temporary but there was no express agreement as to duration) the courts will infer that a tenancy at will was what was intended by them. The classic cases are where a prospective tenant has been let into occupation while the detailed terms of the lease are still being negotiated, or a purchaser let into possession before completion of the purchase, or a tenant holds over after the end of a contractual tenancy and the landlord allows him to remain temporarily, whether for humani- tarian reasons, or while negotiating terms for a new lease: see, for example, Javad v. Aquil [1991] 1 WLR 1007. Leases and bailment 619In addition, there are other cases where a tenancy at will arises by operation of law, most importantly where a tenant goes into possession under a lease which proves to be void (see Prudential below: if no rent was paid the tenant will be taken to have a tenancy at will – his possession has throughout been with permission, but can now be terminated or given up at will – whereas if rent was paid there will be a periodic tenancy, as we see in section 17.3.1.5 below).