In haskell v marlow 1928 2 kb 45 at 50 it was stated

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: er—that is, to take proper care of the property by doing such things as cleaning the windows, mowing the lawn and not damaging the house. Generally, tenants are required by express provision to keep the leased property in repair. This liability, in the absence of express qualification, depends on the doctrine of waste, which can be either voluntary or permissive. A tenant may be expressly released from any obligation to repair relating to fair wear and tear. However, they are bound to carry out such repairs as would be necessary where there is damage that ordinary wear and tear would not produce. In Haskell v Marlow [1928] 2 KB 45 at 50, it was stated that: For example, if a tile falls off the roof, the tenant is not liable for the immediate consequences, but if he does nothing and as a result more and more water gets in, the roof and walls decay and ultimately the top floor, or the whole house becomes uninhabitable, he cannot say that this is due to fair wear and tear, and that therefore he is not liable under his obligation to keep the house in good repair and condition. In such a case, the want of repair is not in truth caused by fair wear and tear. Far the greater part of it is caused by the failure of the tenant to prevent w...
View Full Document

This document was uploaded on 04/23/2012.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online