Servicing a N1 on an exp business partner

[Chellecon]

Hi, I was in business with a friend and it was set up at a Ltd Company. We took out a 3yr lease on a retail shop in personal names.

 

However our working relationship broke down I could not longer work with her. I agreed to sign my shares and profits in the business over to her upon her agreeing to take on all liability including the lease. However it has been over a year since I left and my name is still on the lease.

 

My ex business partner has not been paying the rent on the shop since Decemeber 2012 and the Landlord is now chasing me for money. I want to know if I have a case against my ex partner to get back the money the landlord is trying to recover from me? I have it in writing that she was prepared to take on all liabilities including the rent?

 

Your advice please. I have come to an arrangement with the landlord to pay back the sum on a monthly basis but why should I be out of pocket when it was not my fault.

Edited October 30, 2013 by citizenB

[AndyOrch]

Welcome to CAG Chellecon.

 

Thread moved to General Legal Issues.

 

Regards

 

Andy

[Chellecon]

Reading my case do I have one to take to same claims if for 5,300.00?

[citizenB]

Small claims limit is now £10,000

[citizenB]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/content.php?976-New-Free-Guide-for-Litigants-in-Person

 

Some information on how to be a Litigant in Person (self representing).

[steampowered]

What do you have in writing? I think this is very important to the strength of your case, so important to be clear about this.

[Chellecon]

I have an email from her stating she will take on all liabilities including the rent/ lease on the shop. she agrees to it all if I sign my shares and profits over to her. Will this help as it is an email not hand written?

[The Mould]

I have an email from her stating she will take on all liabilities including the rent/ lease on the shop. she agrees to it all if I sign my shares and profits over to her. Will this help as it is an email not hand written?

 

In the light of that email, all responsibilities for the shopand all payments due thereto are the responsibility of your former partner.

Given that she has accepted liability for the same in heremail, clearly places you in a position ofnon-liability for the same, providedthat you signed over all your shares and profits to her as to all liabilitiesand rent on the shop pursuant to her email; did you undertake this request? .

If you did, then she has no case against you.

Kind regards

The Mould

[Chellecon]

The Mould

 

Thank you so much for your reply, I have an email from her stating that she will take them all. I also have a copy of a letter sent to the landlord stating the same that however it is a printed copy and not dated or signed but is from her will this help or not? I just want to get the ball rolling and get back the landlord want from me it the 5,300 pounds, I believe I have to write her a letter asking her what she is going to do before I go to court is this correct?

[SuperVillain]

Yes a Letter Before Action would be advisable... in my opinion it should go something like:

 

1 - lay out the details of the agreement with her and confirm you have this in writing from her.

 

2 - confirm the details of your arrangement with the landlord.

 

3 - make clear that you are not liable for the payments to the landlord, but as your name wasn't taken off the lease as agreed you are now being pursued.

 

4 - ask that she pay back the monies you have already paid to the landlord plus a lump sum to cover the future payments.

 

5 - Give her a defined timescale to pay - no more than 14 days I'd suggest.

 

6 - Advise if she doesn't pay in the specified time, county court proceedings will be issued.

 

Then wait to see if she pays or what she says at all. I'd send the letter signed for and also send a copy to her by email so that she can't say she didn't get it.

 

Is she still at the property in question?

[Chellecon]

Hi SuperVillain

 

Thanks for your help, As yet I have not paid anything to the landlord as the Lease was ended early on 26th October they are making arrangements for a payment plan to be set up so that I can pay monthly.

 

With regards to the shop she closed it down on 5th of October 2013 and sold off all fixtures and fittings on her personal ebay account. The landlord agreed to end the lease early after I contacted them. I have an email from her agree to take everything on will that be enough? So at the moment I only want the money owed to Landlord that they are asking me for nothing more.

[SuperVillain]

Yes I think it will be enough - see post #8 by The Mould.

 

I think the question is less "is she liable" more like, "will/can she pay you".

 

I'm not psychic but I can see her making all sorts of excuses about why she didn't pay and promising payment by x date and then when that date passes promising to pay by y date etc etc...

[Chellecon]

Hi All,

 

Thanks for your advice I have another question, Can an email from my Ex Business Partner stating that she will take on Liability be enough to start court action, I do not have a legal doc or a signed written letter just an email?

 

Please help.

[steampowered]

There is no need for the email to be hand-written or signed. Emails are perfectly capable of forming legally binding agreements.

 

The only caveat is that, in my experience, what people interpret an email to mean can be very different to what the email actually says. You have told us that she agreed to take on all the liabilities if you agreed to sign your shares over to her, but does the email actually say this and if not there is some scope for the ex-partner to have a different interpretation? I wouldn't like to comment on this unless you are happy to reproduce the exact wording of the email.

 

I guess the email is what it is, and if there is any ambiguity you'll need to see what the court thinks.

[Chellecon]

Steampowered, Email below

 

Me to Ex Business Partner

 

Yes I agreed to ''Walk Away' however this means I was also choosing to walk away from any liabilities ie The Lease for (-------) and any past or future contracts or dealings with(--------) Ltd. By me signing my Shares in the business over to you on 13th July 2012 I also signed my liability over. For this am I willing to forget any profits I entitled to.

I am not walking away with nothing I am waking away without any liability now or in the future.

 

 

 

I have asked for a copy of the books for my own records.

 

 

 

Please could you confirm you are happy with this arrangement.

From Ex to Me

 

Michelle

 

Yes I am happy to take on the liabilities for the business from the date you ceased being a director of the company, ie 13 July 2012.

 

Regards

[steampowered]

Mmm the email is clear enough but it is open to legal challenge.

 

Contract law only enforces agreements where there are promises going in both directions, i.e. I promise to walk away from the business if you promise to release me from liabilities. Before a promise becomes legally binding there has to be an exchange to support the promise (the technical word for this is consideration). If you signed over your shares before the ex-partner agreed to take on your liabilites, there was no consideration to support your ex-partner's promise since the share transfer had already occured. This is known as "past consideration" - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration_in_English_law.

 

If the email is challenged on the basis of the above, most likely it would fall away and you would then need to prove a verbal promise that your ex-partner would take on the liabilities at the time the transfer was made - which is more difficult.

 

To be fair, I doubt your ex-partner would pick up on that point if she is not legally represented. The email is what it is, if you want to get anywhere it will have to be LBA followed by court action or necessary and you'll have to take your chances.

[The Mould]

Steampowered, Email below

 

Me to Ex Business Partner

 

Yes I agreed to ''Walk Away' however this means I was also choosing to walk away from any liabilities ie The Lease for (-------) and any past or future contracts or dealings with(--------) Ltd. By me signing my Shares in the business over to you on 13th July 2012 I also signed my liability over. For this am I willing to forget any profits I entitled to.

I am not walking away with nothing I am waking away without any liability now or in the future.

 

 

 

I have asked for a copy of the books for my own records.

 

 

 

Please could you confirm you are happy with this arrangement.

From Ex to Me

 

Michelle

 

Yes I am happy to take on the liabilities for the business from the date you ceased being a director of the company, ie 13 July 2012.

 

Regards

 

Theemails exchanged between you two parties are unambiguous. Whatis the date and time of your email and the date and time of your ex-businesspartner’s email in response to the same?

Good considerationhas been given by you, because by “walking away” you signed over your shares in the businessand agreed to forego any profits that you were entitled to under the partnership, the value of such may not have beenknown at the said date, nonetheless, your waived your entitlement to the same andthat value may well have amounted to a considerable sum of money!.

Further,the email is sufficient documentary evidence as regards her acceptingliabilities for the business as of 13 July 2013 – the date you ceased acting asa director of the company.

Kindregards

TheMould

[steampowered]

Good considerationhas been given by you, because by “walking away” you signed over your shares in the businessand agreed to forego any profits that you were entitled to under the partnership, the value of such may not have beenknown at the said date, nonetheless, your waived your entitlement to the same andthat value may well have amounted to a considerable sum of money!.

 

Mould, there might not be any consideration if op walked away before the ex-partner agreed to pay the debt. Past consideration is not valid consideration.

[The Mould]

Mould, there might not be any consideration if op walked away before the ex-partner agreed to pay the debt. Past consideration is not valid consideration.

 

That's why I have asked op for dates of these emails.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[The Mould]

Below you shall find some of themost key authorities on the issue of consideration in English contract law.

At the end of this posting, I have posted my own opinion on this matter based upon the said emaildetails posted here by the op and my understanding of consideration in Englishcontract law.

Thank you in advance for your consideration andattention on the matters set out hereafter.

Consideration is traditionallyneeded not just for a new contract to be

formed but also for makingeffective an agreement to vary or discharge

an existing contract;

– Consideration need not benefitpromisor; it can consist simply of some

detriment to promisee or somebenefit to third party:

• “A valuable consideration, inthe sense of the law, may consist either

in some right, interest, profitor benefit accruing to the one party, or

some forbearance, detriment, lossor responsibility, given, suffered,

or undertaken by the other.”(Lush J. in Currie v. Misa (1875)

– Consideration is to bedistinguished from motive or reason for

contracting.

“Consideration: A Restatement”,in P.S. Atiyah, Essays on Contract

(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986),p. 179 et seq.

– Atiyah views considerationbasically as the “reason for enforcement of a

promise”, the reason being “thejustice of the case”.

– For Atiyah, the whole processof intepreting contracts revolves around

the notion of fairness inexchange. The adequacy of consideration plays

an important role in this regard,e.g.

1. If interpretation of terms ofcontract is difficult, amount of

consideration can be importantfactor in determining what

obligations the parties have assumed;

2. The implied condition in acontract (consideration given), and some

rough notion that purchaser isentitled to receive adequate value for

money. The court does notexpressly ask whether purchaser has

received adequate value formoney, but it does so implicitly.

3. If consideration is grosslyinadequate, this may give rise to strong

suspicion of fraud or undueinfluence – which can justify court

setting the contract aside.

A. Considerationmust not be past (cont.)

– Whether consideration is past isa question of fact. Wording of agreement

not necessarily conclusive ofissue. See e.g. Re McArdle (1951).

– Two exceptions to pastconsideration rule:

1. An act already performed maybe valid consideration for subsequent

promise if:

a. Act done at promisor’srequest; and

b. Parties understood at timethat the act was to be compensated for;

and

c. The promise would have beenlegally enforceable had it been

made prior to the act.

– Leading cases: Lampleighv. Brathwaite (1615); Re Casey’s

Patents (1892); PaoOn v. Lau Yiu Long (1980).

2. Negotiable instruments, e.g. cheques.

E. Considerationmust be sufficient

– Consideration must provide somebenefit to promisor or some detriment to

promisee, but benefit ordetriment need not amount to much. Indeed, very

nominal consideration can beprovided for very valuable promises!

• Leading cases: Thomas v.Thomas (1842); Chappell v. Nestlé (1960).

– Nevertheless, considerationmust have some economic or material value

even if negligible. Considerationcannot consist solely in sentimental or

otherwise emotional value – e.g.following someone’s wishes or promising

not to keep boring a person withcomplaints (see espec. White v. Bluett

(1853); cf. US case of Hamerv. Sidway (1891).

– In some cases, considerationcan be provided by promise not to sue. If A

has claim against B, A’s promisenot to enforce claim can be valid

consideration for promise givenby B in return. So if B negligently

damages A’s property, A’s promisenot to sue B for negligence can be

consideration for B’s promise topay for the damage.

• Leading case: Alliance Bank Ltd. v. Broom (1864).

Considerationmust be sufficient (cont.)

– Forbearing to enforce a legalclaim will only amount to valid

consideration if:

a. Claim is reasonable (asopposed to frivolous or vexatious);

b. Promisee honestly believesclaim would be successful;

c. Promisee has not concealedfacts from promisor which would affect

validity of claim; and

d. Promisee evinces intention tobring proceedings if promise not

honoured.

– In terms of (b), it does notmatter that claim would actually fail in law;

promisee must simply believehonestly in claim’s chances of success.

– NB: Again, party’s promise notto enforce existing claim will only

provide consideration if promiseprovided in return was actually induced

by promise not to enforce claim. See e.g. Combev. Combe (1951).

Performance ofexisting duty

– Performance or promise ofperformance of an existing duty will usually

not amount to consideration.Rationale: promisee suffers no legal

detriment (they can already besued to enforce original promise) and

promisor only obtains that towhich they were already entitled. But

courts have increasinglyintroduced exceptions to this rule.

– Three main types of existingduty:

1. Public duties

• Person carrying out dutieswhich they are required to do under

general law (i.e. independent ofcontract), will not provide

consideration, unless they dosomething extra. Main rationale: to

discourage persons with publicduties from demanding additional

contrractual payments or otherbenefits for carrying out those duties.

– Traditional authority for rule:Collins v. Godefroy (1831).

– Leading case in which promiseefound to have carried out

something additional to theirpublic duty: Glasbrook Brothers

v. Glasmorgan County Council (1925).

Performance ofexisting duty (cont.)

2. Existing contractual duty topromisor

– Traditionally found not to beconsideration. See e.g. Stilk v. Myrick

(1809); cf. Hartley v.Ponsonby (1857). Basic concern of courts here has

been to minimise risk ofextortion and duress.

– Now distinction needs to bedrawn between (i) contractual duties to

supply goods or services and (ii)contractual duties to pay debts.

– Regarding (i) see Williamsv. Roffey (1990): if one party’s promise to

perform an existing contractualduty to supply goods or services confers

an extra practical benefit on theother party, it will be sufficient

consideration to make a promisegiven in return binding – as long as no

duress is involved and theparties are involved in genuine renegotiations

of the contract.

Performance ofexisting duty (cont.)

2. Existing contractual duty topromisor (cont.)

– In sum, if:

i. A enters into contract with Bto supply goods or services to B in

return for payment by B, and

ii. Prior to A’s completion ofhis/her obligations B has reason to doubt

that A will be able to completethose obligations, and

iii. B thereupon promises A extramoney in return for A’s promise to

complete on time, and

iv. As a result of B’s newpromise, B gains in practice a benefit or

obviates a disbenefit, and

v. B’s new promise is not aresult of duress or fraud on A’s part, then

vi. The benefit to B is capableof being consideration for B’s promise

(per Glidewell LJ).

– Most academic commentatorspraise result, claiming that it accords with

commercial reality. But is decision entirelysatisfactory?

Performance ofexisting duty (cont.)

2. Existing contractual duty topromisor (cont.)

– In NZ, courts have gone furtherthan Roffey and held that contractual

variations, once relied upon, donot need consideration at all: see e.g. NZ

Ct. of Appeal decision in AntonsTrawling Co. Ltd. v. Smith (2003).

– Cf. Duties to pay debts –where some person owes another person

money, a promise by the latter toaccept a smaller repayment will only be

binding if the debtor providessome extra element as consideration.

Leading decision is Pinnel’sCase (1602), in which Lord Coke famously

held:

• “Payment of a lesser sum on theday in satisfaction of a greater,

cannot be any satisfaction forthe whole, because it appears to the

judge, that by no possibility alesser sum can be satisfaction to the

plaintiff for a greater sum.”

– This is termed the rulein Pinnel’s Case. An example of application of

this rule is Foakes v. Beer (1884).

Performance ofexisting duty (cont.)

2. Existing contractual duty topromisor (cont.)

– A rationale for rule in Pinnel’sCase is to protect creditor from pressure

from debtor who attempts to forcecreditor to take less or nothing at all.

Yet rule is criticised as notsufficiently refined to distinguish and allow

fair and reasonable transactionswhere part payment is truly desired by

creditor. And how do we reconcilerule in Pinnel’s Case with Roffey?

– More recent application of rulein Pinnel’s Case is Re Selectmove Ltd

(1995) per CA, which held that itwas bound by precedent to apply the

rule (the rule not having beenoverturned by higher court or legislation).

Cf. Collier v. P & M JWright (Holdings) Ltd (2008) – one judge in

Court of Appeal prepared to usepromissory estoppel (see next lecture) to

override effect of Pinnel’s Case, butauthority is weak.

F. Performanceof existing duty (cont.)

2. Existing contractual duty topromisor (cont.)

– In Pinnel’s Case,however, the court made clear that a change to debtor’s

obligation (other than reductionof amount owing) could provide

consideration for promise by thecreditor to accept lesser amount. Thus,

early repayment of percentage oforiginal amount owed, could be

consideration for creditor’spromise to accept repayment as full

settlement of debt. Same couldapply if repayment made by third party

(see Hirachand Punamchan v.Temple (1911) or in different currency or

by way of providing material item(rather than money).

– Rule in Pinnel’s Case willalso not apply if there is genuine dispute about

how much is owed or if any moneyat all is owed (Cooper v. Parker

(1885)). It also does not applyto unliquidated claims or composition

agreements.

F. Performanceof existing duty (cont.)

3. Existing contractual duty tothird party

– Situation: A promises C that Awill perform contractual obligation

already owed to B; theperformance of that obligation can = good

consideration for promise made byC to A. Early (though ambiguous)

decision on point is Shadwellv. Shadwell (1860). Later (and clear)

decision on point is NewZealand Shipping Co. v. A.M. Satterthwaite &

Co. (TheEurymedon) (1975).In Pao On v. Lau Yiu Long (1980), Privy

Council held that mere promise toperform contractual duty to TP =

consideration.

Lampleigh vBraithwait (1615)

Braithwait killed someone and then asked Lampleighto get him a pardon. Lampleigh got the pardon and gave it to Braithwait who promisedto pay Lampleigh £100 for his trouble.

It was held that although Lampleigh's considerationwas past (he had got the pardon) Braithwaite's promise to pay could be linkedto Braithwaite's earlier request and treated as one agreement, so it could beimplied at the time of the request that Lampleigh would be paid.

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4MYrWDl

Re Casey's Patent(1892)

A and B owned a patent and C was the manager whohad worked on it for two years. A and B then promised C a one-third share inthe invention for his help in developing it. The patents were transferred to Cbut A and B then claimed their return.

It was held that C could rely on the agreement.Even though C's consideration was in the past, it had been done in a businesssituation, at the request of A and B and it was understood by both sides that Cwould be paid and the subsequent promise to pay merely fixed the amount.

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4MtZE5Y

Pao On v Lau Yiu Long(1980)

Lord Scarman said:

"An act done before the giving of a promise tomake a payment or to confer some other benefit can sometimes be considerationfor the promise. The act must have been done at the promisors' request: theparties must have understood that the act was to be remunerated either by apayment or the conferment of some other benefit: and payment, or the confermentof a benefit, must have been legally enforceable had it been promised inadvance."

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4N7pCzV

 

Alliance Bank v Broom(1864)

The defendant owed an unsecured debt to theplaintiffs. When the plaintiffs asked for some security, the defendant promisedto provide some goods but never produced them. When the plaintiffs tried toenforce the agreement for the security, the defendant argued that theplaintiffs had not provided any consideration.

It was held that normally in such a case, the bankwould promise not to enforce the debt, but this was not done here. By notsuing, however, the bank had shown forbearance and this was validconsideration, so the agreement to provide security was binding.

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4NhqQH1

 

Williams v Roffey(1990)

Roffey had a contract to refurbish a block of flatsand had sub-contracted the carpentry work to Williams. After the work hadbegun, it became apparent that Williams had underestimated the cost of the workand was in financial difficulties. Roffey, concerned that the work would not becompleted on time and that as a result they would fall foul of a penalty clausein their main contract with the owner, agreed to pay Williams an extra paymentper flat. Williams completed the work on more flats but did not receive fullpayment. He stopped work and brought an action for damages. In the Court ofAppeal, Roffey argued that Williams was only doing what he was contractuallybound to do and so had not provided consideration.

It was held that where a party to an existingcontract later agrees to pay an extra "bonus" in order to ensure thatthe other party performs his obligations under the contract, then thatagreement is binding if the party agreeing to pay the bonus has therebyobtained some new practical advantage or avoided a disadvantage. In the presentcase there were benefits to Roffey including (a) making sure Williams continuedhis work, (b) avoiding payment under a damages clause of the main contract ifWilliams was late, and © avoiding the expense and trouble of getting someoneelse. Therefore, Williams was entitled to payment.

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4OGbr00

 

Scotson v Pegg (1861)

Scotson contracted to deliver coal to X, or to X'sorder. X sold the coal to Pegg and ordered Scotson to deliver the coal to Pegg.Then Pegg promised Scotson that he would unload it at a fixed rate. In anaction by Scotson to enforce Pegg's promise, Pegg argued that the promise wasnot binding because Scotson had not provided consideration as Scotson was boundby his contract with X (a third party) to deliver the coal.

It was held that Scotson's delivery of coal (theperformance of an existing contractual duty to a third party, X) was a benefitto Pegg and was valid consideration. It could also been seen as a detriment toScotson, as they could have broken their contract with X and paid damages.

 

Read more: Cases on consideration | Contract Law | Law Teacherhttp://www.lawteacher.net/contract-law/cases/consideration-cases.php#ixzz2k4OX4LU3

 

I believe that good consideration has been given bythe op in the case and the circumstances of it. It appears to me that the partner was all too ready to accept the op’sdecision to walk away from this business and forego all her rights in theshares and profits of the business.

Those share and profits must have been in good orderand worth of some value, otherwise, the partner would have refused to accept theop’s walking away from the business and she would not have given her agreementin the said email to accept all liabilities owed by the business.

Kind regards

The Mould

[Riz0]

I agree with steampowered on the consideration point.

 

But I would say do the following on a broader scale and it would be helpful to have comments from sp and other more experienced bods on here:

 

1. Write back to the landlord, enclose a copy of the email exchange and say that your former business partner is solely responsible since X date. Enclose any other evidence that he has been aware of this. The fact that the lease wasn't varied can be dealt with separately (if they raise that point).

 

2. Say you don't accept liability for the claim.

 

3. Explain if he issues proceedings, you will join in your partner as as a Part 20 Defendant, so they are better off just going against her from the start.

 

4. Any court proceedings will be defended robustly.

 

Obviously the above depends on what you have to lose if they do in fact issue proceedings and whether there are any considerations I am not aware of by which you may be better just paying the landlord and pursuing your former partner separately.

 

Do you know what state your former business partner is in at the moment? Does she own a house/car/other property/valuables?

 

I would also send a Letter Before Action now to your former partner explaining the situation and state your intention to issue a claim or join her into any proceedings in case a claim is served on you.

 

In any case - I wouldn't pay the landlord in full or at all this stage.

[steampowered]

Riz0, unless the landlord agreed to release the op from liability I think op is still liable to the landlord. The op may be able to recover payments from the business partner, but the landlord was not involved in the agreement.

 

Op could certainly join the ex-business partner as a defendant in any litigation though.

[The Mould]

Hi, I was in business with a friend and it was set up at a Ltd Company. We took out a 3yr lease on a retail shop in personal names.

 

However our working relationship broke down I could not longer work with her. I agreed to sign my shares and profits in the business over to her upon her agreeing to take on all liability including the lease. However it has been over a year since I left and my name is still on the lease.

 

My ex business partner has not been paying the rent on the shop since Decemeber 2012 and the Landlord is now chasing me for money. I want to know if I have a case against my ex partner to get back the money the landlord is trying to recover from me? I have it in writing that she was prepared to take on all liabilities including the rent?

 

Your advice please. I have come to an arrangement with the landlord to pay back the sum on a monthly basis but why should I be out of pocket when it was not my fault.

 

As of the date you "walked away" from this matter with your business partner's full consent, were you aware of any value in the shares or of any profit in the business?

 

Send the Landlord a copy of the emails exchanged between you an ex-business partner and tell him she has clearly accepted all liabilities for the company.

 

The Landlord is chasing you for 3 reasons; a) you obviously signed the lease along with your ex-business partner; b) he does not have any knowledge as to your ex-business partner accepting all liabilities for the company and the ending of your contractual relationship with her being terminated and b) your ex-business partner is obviously not paying the rent and any other monies owed to the Landlord under the said lease.

 

 

Can you please provide your answers in respect of my enquiry as to your knowledge of there being any value to your shares in the company or if the company was in or due profits and please confirm the date of the emails exchanged between you and ex-partner as regards you "walking away" from this matter as a clean break.

 

Kind regards

 

The Mould

[Riz0]

Riz0, unless the landlord agreed to release the op from liability I think op is still liable to the landlord. The op may be able to recover payments from the business partner, but the landlord was not involved in the agreement.

 

Op could certainly join the ex-business partner as a defendant in any litigation though.

 

You are probably correct on point one. However, we would have to see the terms of any lease and what communication was provided to the landlord. There is reference to a letter being sent informing the landlord.

 

However, my broader point was meant to be that he should hand over £5k. Liability isn't clear cut and he can make this messy for the landlord, so it may be more hassle than it is worth for him/it. Unless there is reason not to, he should make this as difficult as possible for the landlord to make sure he isn't coughing up all the money.

 

Chellecon - if you don't mind, it would also be helpful if you could please reproduce any liability clause in the lease. It may be titled "Joint and several liability" or simply "Liability".... anything that discusses this point would be helpful.

 

Unlikely, but it may be that you are only liable for half of the rent.