When there’re improper wordings or self-conflicting terms in an agreement, what factors should be considered to determine whether the effect of the agreement is undermined?

For example: A tenancy agreement has been created between a landlord A and a tenant B. B pays the rents to A to rent the place. But one (the first) clause in the agreement read: Outlines the arrangement and terms of the tenant to rent as a subtenant of the landlord through a sublease of the premises of ADDRESS OF THE PLACE

In this case, B pays the rents to the landlord to rent the place, he/she should be considered as a tenant, but the above-mentioned clause states that the tenant rent as a subtenant, which may cause confusions. But is that confusing enough such that the enforceability of the agreement is undermined?


is that confusing enough such that the enforceability of the agreement is undermined?

No. Inaccurate labels are unlikely to prevent the parties and the fact-finder from ascertaining the intent and legal implications of the agreement. Nor can the improper labels overcome the non sequitur of a landlord leasing directly to a "subtenant", that is, with no underlying tenant(s) as legal link between the parties to that agreement.

Where the use of inaccurate labels would elude non-waivable statutory provisions, those labels are stripped of their nominal effect and the agreement would be enforced as if it used the proper labels.

In the scenario you outline, B is in fact a tenant regardless of how he is labeled in the agreement. Landlord A cannot get away with violating B's statutory rights under the pretext that pursuant to the agreement B is a subtenant rather than a tenant.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.