Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback Vanuatu Law Reports

Societe Civile Familiale Gaudron v Prouds South Seas Ltd [1984] VULawRp 11; [1980-1994] Van LR 100 (8 June 1984)

[1980-1994] Van LR 100

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF VANUATU

CIVIL JURISDICTION

Civil Case No. 214 of 1983

BETWEEN:

SOCIETE CIVILE FAMILIALE GAUDRON
Plaintiff

AND:

PROUDS SOUTH SEAS LIMITED
Defendant

Coram: Cooke C.J

JUDGMENT

[LANDLORD AND TENANT - option to renew - parties not Ad Idem]

The Plaintiff leased land and building thereon situated at Tassiriki to the Defendant for one year from 1st July 1982 to 30th June 1983. The lease contained provisions for renewal for an undetermined period. Written notice for termination of the lease to be given by either party by one month's notice.

Before the lease expired the parties met and discussed a possible new lease. A letter was written on the 25th March 1983 by the Defendant to the Manager, Agence Saint Michael, for the attention of Mrs Paumier who was the person negotiating the lease. Paragraph 2 of the said letter stated:

"I understand that we can enter into a new lease from 1st July 1983 for a period of eighteen months at a rental of 72,500 VT per month with an option to renew the lease for a further eighteen months. It would be appreciated if the lease document is in English."

The letter further stated that the house was in a very poor state when the leasing commenced.

That portion of the letter underlined is most important. It must be asked - did the writer of the letter expect the rent for the total period of three years to be 72,500 VT per month? The answer to that query can only be answered by the facts stated.

In due course, a lease in English was submitted to the Defendant which contained a clause to the effect that the rent for the second period of eighteen months was to be subject of negotiation between the parties. The Defendant, on receipt of the English lease, consulted a lawyer and gave notice to the Plaintiff on the 21st July 1983 that he was vacating the premises on 31st July 1983. The reason stated in the notice was that the new lease only contained a further extension for eighteen months by the tacit agreement of both parties. Clearly the Defendant expected the rent for the three years lease to be the same and as it was not, he decided to break off negotiations and terminate. In other words, at that stage the parties were not 'ad idem' and perfectly entitled to cease negotiations. In both England and France the terms of the lease are settled by agreement between the parties, the lessor, as owner of the land, having the right to refuse to renew the lease being in consequence able to insist on a higher rent as a condition of renewal. In France occupiers are given security of tenure and protection against arbitrary increases of rent. Therefore, so far as legislature extends, it is a matter of 'Ordre Public', and the parties cannot contract out of it. Legislation protecting tenants under French Law was consolidated on the 1st September 1948 with many amendments thereto.

The state of affairs between the Defendant and Mrs Paumier seems to have been clarified by the letter that passed between them. For example on the 9th August 1983 (Exhibit 4 and 4b in File), Mrs Paumier wrote to the Defendant accepting the fact that he, the Defendant, wanted to vacate the premises and in my opinion agreeing to the same as she enclosed with her letter a statement of account amounting to VT 79,500 ie. VT 72,500 for month's rent and invoice of 4th August for supply of 4 pieces of furniture at VT 7,000. It is my opinion Mrs Paumier accepted the fact that the parties were not 'ad idem' and that final negotiations regarding a new lease had not concluded. I take Judicial notice of the fact that Mrs Paumier is well known as an estate agent in Vila dealing with many persons seeking accommodation in Vila. I accept the contents of the letter of the 9th August 1983 as expressing the true position of the parties when notice vacating was given by the Defendant.

Accordingly, I give judgment to the Plaintiff for the sum of VT 51,542 still due for outstanding rent, VT 7,000 for four pieces of furniture as claimed and two months property tax amounting to VT 3,683. A total of VT 62,225.

I have given careful consideration to the question of costs. I order that each party pays its own costs in view of the circumstances.

I dismiss the claim of the Plaintiff for VT 850,527 for repairs and replacements to the house. Not one of the items claims appears in the inventory attached to the lease. In my opinion it is a completely spurious claim.

Dated at Port Vila this 8th day of June 1984.

FREDERICK G. COOKE
CHIEF JUSTICE