Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Licenses - Coggle Diagram

- - - - 4 separate agreement w 4 person, different time/rent --> separate license agreement
  - - - pretty much same as estoppel
- - - - e.g. postman
  - - - whats reasonable depend on initial agreement
      - e.g. some cases bare license can only be revoked once reasonable notice given to licensee
      - does not immediately become trespasser - only after reasonable period
      - potential human rights arguments (art 8)
        
        rarely, but maybe if public body evict
  - - - general rule: licensee no right to assert stranger
      - BUT if licensee in physical EP = have standing to sue 3P in trespass
        
        NOT cuz of the license, but cuz of possession
        
        just like squatter can sue trespass as well
    - - licensor --> disponee, does license binds?
      - normal rule of priority
      - bare license NOT proprietary = licensee no preexisting property right that can survive the transfer
- - - - Protection from Eviction Act 1977
        
        s 3: court order require to recover possession of dwelling property
        
        s5: 4 weeks notice to terminate periodic license of dwelling
      - possible HR issue if property is licensee's home
      - former licensee must leave within "reasonable period"
      - licensor wanna end license early?
        
        breach of contract
        
        innocent party got remedy for damage/specific performance
        
        they can, but will be breach, pay damage
    - - Wood v Leadbitter: C (licensee) paid for ticket, were asked to leave
        
        ordinary position: licensor can revoke, former licensee = trespasser, remedy = sue breach of contract
        
        BUT equity intervenes: if licensee sticks to term, have continuing right to use UNLESS commit breach
        
        equity saying that licensor can't just breach and terminate contract
        
        --> contractual license now de facto IRREVOCABLE
        
        if licensee sticks to contractual terms
      - Hurst v Picture Theatres: C bought ticket, thrown out mistakenly; could license be revoked?
        
        COULD NOT be revoked, C done nothing wrong
      - Verrall v Great Yarmouth BC: contract for hire of all, council revoke license, willing to pay damage
        
        C can't find anyone else to hire hall, wanna enforce license
        
        CA: de facto IRREVOCABLE
      - EXCEPTION: wont intervene to force couple live tgt if they broke up
  - - - can sue 3P in trespass if in physical EP
        
        e.g. Manchester Ship Canal v Vauxhall Motors
      - can also sue trespass if licensee NOT yet taken physical possession, but license CONFERS right to occupation
        
        Manchester Airport v Dutton
        
        BEFORE starting to occupy, licensee can sue trespasser
        
        licensee w no property right no possession, but if have agreement that grant them possession, Dutton --> can sue 3P in trespass
        
        controversial
        
        usually only if licensee in actual possession that they can sue trespass
    - - X has license by A, A--> B
      - Stage 1: bind where X has preexisting property right that survives transfer (preexisting/not overreached, survived under s 28, 29)
        
        only PROPERTY right can survive this
      - Stage 2: Doesnt bind at stage 1, newly arise by virtue of B's conduct
      - is contractual license proprietary interest such that pre-existing license can bind disponees? (Stage 1)
        
        before: NO
        
        King v David Ellen, Clore v Theatrical Properties
        
        Lord Denning in Errington: contractual licenses were equitiable property right capable binding 3P
        
        father bought property, give son & daughter as contractual license
        
        dad dies, leave house to wife, son leave, daughter in law wanna stay
        
        contractual license = property right, son wife's license binds the mother
        
        big intervention, DIDNT survive
        
        Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold
        
        contractual licences merely personal
        
        confirmed in lloyd v dugdale
        
        can NEVER SURVIVE Stage 1, no pre-existing property right
      - has a new direct right arisen owning to disponee's conduct? (Stage 2)
        
        disponee bring themselves under new direct obligation
        
        e.g. B promise A that he will respect his right --> new right may arise
        
        since contractual license ≠ property right, CANNOT bind at Stage 1 - only way is from Stage 2
      - possible impact of human rights
        
        if right doesnt bind B, X might have HR argument - UNLIKELY to succeed
        
        e.g. ECHR art 8
    - - should we add this into list of property rights?
      - HR argument: if licensee occupy as their home
      - since difference b/ lease vs. licenses so difficult to track, maybe consequence of recognizing right NOT THAT different
      - BUT if allow all contractual license --> proprietary, almost every promissory interest will qualify
      - --> contractual license should remain personal
        
        if need protection, should leave to HR legs
        
        WORK ENDS HERE