"Steve Haywood"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 24/10/06, Adrian Stott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >AIUI, FBS was on a standard commercial lease on its old site. Under
>> such, Tony would have known from the beginning exactly when the lease
>> was going to end, and that BW had the right not to renew if it needed
>> the site for something else.
<snip>
>> All seems reasonable to me.
>
>It was not at all reasonable. In fact, the way Tony was treated was entirely
>unreasonable. He had been on a recurring lease since, I think, 1962 and had
>no reason for thinking that it wouldn't be renewed annually the way it
>always had been.
You've made my point.
If a business requires long-term security of tenure, it should arrange
it. It is very unwise to assume that a periodically-renewable
short-term agreement is the same as a longer-term one. If you take
the risk of the former because it is cheaper than the latter, that is
your lookout. The reason it is cheaper is that you are getting less
security.
The fact that a lease has been renewed several times before is *no*
indication that it will be renewed next time. That is a core element
of the design of such leases.
If he wanted longer-term secure tenure, he could have, any time over
the years, pursed the options of (a) renegotiating the lease to get a
longer term, or, it that were not available on acceptable conditions
(b) relocating to another site where such an agreement would be
available.
>And as for 'making arrangements' with him to relocate
>nearby, I am left speechless. They were constrained into making an
>accommodation with him when they would rather not have done simply because
>Tony owned freehold land critical to the site access.
So there was quid pro quo. What's wrong with that? Should he have
expected/had something for nothing? I can't see what you are getting
at.
> He was treated shabbily.
Not based on what you have said. He made a contract, and the other
party appears to have stuck to it exactly. That is the very opposite
of shabby treatment.
> He had built up the boatyard and the pub at the bottom of the
>locks from nothing, only to be kicked out in favour of the corporate
>partnership with Scottish and Newcastle.
Er, replace "kicked out ..." with "asked to leave as he had agreed."
And of course BW's reason for not renewing was that it could get more
profit out of dealing with another party. That's how these things
work.
Boatyards, pubs, and tourism sites are businesses. Why should they be
run otherwise?
Adrian
Adrian Stott
07956-299966
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/canals-list/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
