Rent obligations are often part of a group restructuring (particularly in the retail sector), so landlords, tenants and administrators should be aware that the Court of Justice has limited the parties` freedom of enterprise in this approach. Section 25 of the 1995 Act deals with the “effect” of an agreement, not its purpose. For this reason, it does not matter that, in the specific case, the guarantee is freely offered by the existing guarantor: if it is contrary to the 1995 law, it is not applicable to the surety, as on Victoria Street K/S itself. In summary, the owners of Good Harvest are in a stronger position than expected, as the Court indicates that the partial guarantees under the AGAs are valid. These should have about the same effect as the guarantor of the assignee gives a guarantee as to the liability of the assignee for the tenant associations under the tenancy agreement. The owner wanted to make the guarantor liable after the AGM. The B-rge challenged liability on the grounds that the liability for guarantee after the AGM is based on the disclaimer, since the disclaimer terminated the lease. A renter with a deposit cannot be assigned to another tenant, who is then guaranteed by the same deposit unit (K/S Victoria). The Court of Appeal confirmed that if, in a situation where the debts of an outgoing tenant have ceased, a lessor could impose the obligation that the existing guarantor must guarantee the obligations of the future tenant, he would thwart the clear objective of the 1995 Act. After the completion of the original tenant`s assignment to the assignee, the assignee would be exempt from his obligations as a tenant under the tenancy agreement (s5(2)).
Section 24 (2) of the 1995 Act stipulates that the parent company must be released to the same extent as the guarantor of the assignee. If this were not the case, landlords would have the right to ensure that the guarantors were in exactly the situation they were in prior to the start of the 1995 Act, by undertaking a “renewal obligation”, which means that lenders could ask the guarantors, when awarding leases, to guarantee responsibility for any consecutive lease over the duration of the lease. However, donors may find a way around this issue on the basis of the Court of Justice`s ruling on partial guarantees. Good Harvest raised some doubts about this, but the Court of Appeal found that the tenant`s guarantor could effectively guarantee the obligations of the AGM assignee by a partial guarantee, provided that the s16 provisions of the 1995 Act (AG provisions) were respected. In addition, the Court of Justice went beyond Good Harvest and indicated that the guarantor of the assignee could vouch for the liability of subsequent customers in the event of subsequent transfers, i.e. contracts made after the assignment in question. In limited circumstances, the approved guarantee contract goes beyond a second assignment – z.B if you did not obtain the agreement of the lessor before the award of the lease. In this case, your liability for the contract would last until the next assignment authorized by the owner. In other limited circumstances, the contract may be terminated before the usual expiry date, for example.
B if the lessor is in violation,. B for example, a substantial change in the lease that is made without the part of the deposit.