Canada: Recent Developments Of Importance In Property Leasing: Part II

QUIET ENJOYMENT: A Functional Landlord Covenant or a Theoretical Concept with No Remedy for Tenants?

The right of a tenant to enjoy its premises without interference from its landlord is unquestionably essential to any lease. At the time of entering into a lease, it is hard to anticipate and capture all of the instances that constitute interference. Furthermore, landlords often specify that interference as a result of repairs and improvements to the property or premises will not constitute a landlord default. So where is the line drawn? To what extent does a tenant have to suffer — and in whose opinion — for it to be entitled to some form of remedy? These next two cases indicate that the burden of proof is high, loss of profits may not be enough, and a minor interference (even if major to a tenant) will not garner a favourable finding from the court.

In 37504 Yukon Inc. (Sam n' Andy's) v. 46249 Yukon Inc., the restaurant Tenant brought a claim for damages and expenses for breach of its right to quiet enjoyment after it was forced to close its restaurant for 1.5 days while the Landlord replaced a sewer pipe.

The Yukon Territory Small Claims Court explained that a tenant must show that the landlord substantially interfered with its enjoyment of the premises in order to recover damages. While the restaurant was closed for a relatively short time, the Tenant suffered serious business losses, which amounted to serious and substantial interference with the Tenant's enjoyment of the Premises. However, the closure was not caused by an act or omission of the Landlord, as the sewage pipe didnot have a history of backing up and there was no indication that the pipe would fail. Furthermore, the Landlord had the pipe repaired in a timely fashion. The Court held that the Tenant's claims for breach of quiet enjoyment and breach of contract could not be sustained; however, the Tenant was entitled to rent abatement in accordance with the Lease and reimbursement for some labour and cleaning supplies.

The case of Stearman v. Powers (c.o.b. Walkabout Casual Wear) is an update from the Superior Court decision we included in our Summer 2015 Newsletter. As a reminder, this case considered whether a pervasive and unpleasant odour coming from the building's HVAC system breached the Tenant's right to quiet enjoyment and the implied term of fitness in the Premises. The Superior Court dismissed the Landlord's claim for non-payment of rent on the basis that the odour breached the covenant of quiet enjoyment and substantially deprived the Tenant of the whole benefit of the Lease and allowed the Tenant to terminate.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal reversed the decision and held that the odour was not a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The Court explained that quiet enjoyment refers to the tenant's right to exclusive occupancy and enjoyment of the premises without substantial interference by the landlord. The odour was not grave or permanent in nature and there was no evidence that it was the result of the Landlord's act or omission. Furthermore, the Lease expressly provided that the Tenant was leasing the Premises on an "as is" basis.

The Court of Appeal also found that the odour was not a fundamental breach of the Lease; where the breach goes to the root of the contract and substantially deprives a tenant of the benefit of the lease. Despite the presence of the odour, the Tenant was able to carry on her clothing business and was not able to prove loss of profits.

The case of Bachechi Bros. Realty Inc. v. Canwest Marine Services Inc. followed the Court of Appeal's decision in Stearman. In Bachechi, the Landlord brought an application for an injunction to restrain the Tenant from misusing a parking lot. The Tenant counterclaimed and sought damages for the Landlord's breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment on account of the Landlord's unannounced visits to the Premises to monitor the parking lot. The Court referred to Stearman and noted that the law concerning the covenant of quiet enjoyment is well-settled and a tenant must demonstrate that the landlord's actions have rendered the premises "substantially less fit for the purposes for which they were let." The Court rejected the Tenant's claim, as there was no evidence that the visits substantially interfered with or prevented the Tenant's day-to-day business operations.

RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL: How Fast do Tenants have to Act?

A Right of First Refusal (ROFR) is a strategic consideration that is advantageous to both landlords and tenants. Generally, a tenant's ROFR to lease other space in a building will be triggered when the landlord subsequently receives an offer to lease the same space.

In Lenco Investments Inc. v. 1440825 Ontario Inc., the Lease contained a typical ROFR, wherein the Landlord had to notify the Tenant of any third-party offer to purchase the property and the Tenant had 30 days to decide whether or not to match the offer. The ROFR was subject to termination if either party terminated the Lease on three months' notice as provided thereunder. When the Landlord received and accepted a third party offer to purchase the property and terminated the Lease, the Tenant purported to exercise the ROFR.

The Landlord applied for judicial interpretation of the ROFR. The Ontario Superior Court found that the Landlord was allowed to terminate the tenancy in accordance with the mechanism provided under the Lease and thus, the tenant could no longer exercise the ROFR.

The Ontario Court of Appeal reversed the decision and emphasized the importance of interpreting the ROFR and the termination right in the context of the Lease as a whole. When the Landlord received the third party's offer to purchase the property, it was obligated to notify the Tenant and was only entitled to terminate after the Tenant had an opportunity to match the offer and declined to do so. Otherwise, the ROFR would be a meaningless right for the Tenant. The Court of Appeal held that the Tenant had properly exercised the ROFR and ordered the Landlord to enter an agreement of purchase and sale with the Tenant.

TERMINATION RIGHTS: When Does a Legitimate Business Term Become a Misuse of Power?

Termination rights are perhaps the most extreme rights in a commercial lease. Both landlords and tenants devote a great deal of time contemplating these rights during lease negotiations. Given the thought (and drastic consequences) involved in granting termination rights, parties purporting to invoke such rights should assume that they'll be held to the highest standard in their exercise thereof and that their rights will be interpreted with the strictest construction.

In 2249740 Ontario Inc. v. Morguard Elgin Ltd., the Plaintiff Tenant entered into a Lease for a historic building in Ottawa. The initial Lease Term was 10 years with two five-year options to renew. The Landlord wanted the building occupied by the Tenant even though the Landlord would eventually require vacant possession so it could build a development on the adjacent lot. The development could not begin until the Landlord secured an anchor tenant.

The Lease contained a delayed possession clause that allowed the Landlord to terminate the Lease if it reasonably believed that it would not be able to deliver possession within six months of the commencement date. After the Lease was executed, the parties agreed that the possession date would be delayed by one year if the Landlord could not secure an anchor tenant or three years if the Landlord could secure an anchor tenant. The Landlord secured an anchor tenant, but was unable to successfully negotiate further amendments to the Lease, so the Landlord relied on the delayed possession clause and terminated the Lease. The Tenant sued for wrongful termination of the Lease and brought a motion for summary judgment.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the Landlord's reliance on the delayed possession clause was unreasonable and that the Lease was wrongfully terminated, as the Landlord had secured an anchor tenant, therefore the commencement date had been extended by three years. The Landlord could not have reasonably known so far in advance at the time it terminated that it would not be able to deliver possession within six months of the commencement date. Further, the Landlord admitted that the termination of the Lease was an inevitable consequence of proceeding with the development. The Landlord essentially made a business decision to terminate the Lease and its reliance on the delayed possession clause was not a legitimate exercise of its rights.

USE OF PREMISES: Where is the Line Drawn between Permitted and Prohibited Use?

Three recent cases from across Canada remind us of the far-reaching impact that a Use clause has on a tenant's ability to operate its business. The case of 0764673 B.C. Ltd. v. Amacon Dawson Development Partnership illustrates that a tenant who uses its premises for a purpose wholly inconsistent with the terms of a lease — and such a contravening use imposes a considerable risk to a landlord — cannot expect a court to fault a landlord for not expressly carving out certain restrictions.

On the other hand, the Ontario Court of Appeal decision in 2249778 Ontario Inc. v. Smith signals the court's unwillingness to step in and imagine what uses might be prohibited under a lease when the parties have a clear opportunity to contemplate and draft the parameters of use before the lease is signed. With both 0764673 B.C. Ltd. and 2249778 Ontario Inc. in mind, landlords who wish to limit uses that are naturally or logically ancillary to a primary use should draft accordingly in order to avoid a court's expansive interpretation of a permitted use.

The case of Corydon Village Mall Ltd. v. Tel Management Inc., deals with a tenant's requested change in use and a landlord's limited obligation to provide its consent in the face of other tenants' exclusive use rights and the general character and retail mix of a shopping centre. However, while a landlord's obligation might be limited, a tenant's inability to carry out its permitted use due to financial constraints is certainly an area of concern for both landlords and tenants.

In 0764673 B.C. Ltd., the Lease provided that the Tenant's Use of the Premises was for the purpose of a light industry masonry warehouse and business headquarters. During an inspection, the Landlord found a licensed marijuana grow operation in the Premises. The Lease did not provide for a cure period and the Landlord terminated on the basis that the grow operation was not a permitted use. The Tenant removed the marijuana plants and sought a declaration that the termination was invalid, or alternatively, it should be granted relief from forfeiture.

The British Columbia Supreme Court held that the grow operation constituted a violation of the Use clause and the Landlord was entitled to terminate the Lease. The Tenant was not entitled to relief from forfeiture because it entered the Lease with no intention of complying with the Use. Further, the Tenant knowingly put the Landlord at risk of suffering extensive losses. The Court noted that the Tenant's conduct had irrevocably destroyed the normal landlord-tenant business relationship contemplated by the Lease. Furthermore, the fact that the grow operation was removed from the Premises did not mean there was no longer any breach of the Lease to support termination, as the Lease had already been properly terminated.

In 2249778 Ontario Inc., the Lease specifically provided that the Premises was to be used for the operation of a fast food restaurant and "for no other purpose." After signing the Lease, the Tenant immediately installed an ATM in the Premises. The Landlord sought a declaration that the ATM was not a permitted use of the Premises and brought an order requiring the ATM's removal.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the ATM was a permitted use under the Lease because it did not alter the purpose of the Premises. The ATM was merely a tool that the Tenant used to achieve its business objective of running a fast food restaurant and did not signify (as the Landlord suggested) that the Tenant was offering banking services.

The Landlord unsuccessfully appealed the Superior Court's decision. The Court of Appeal found that the Lease did not specifically prohibit the installation and operation of an ATM in the Premises nor did it define "fast-food restaurant". The Court of Appeal noted that "it is open to parties to a commercial lease" to specifically prohibit the installation and operation of an ATM in the Premises.

In Corydon Village Mall Ltd., the Tenant leased space in the Landlord's shopping centre for the retail sale of women's shoes and related accessories and "for no other purpose whatsoever." Within months of signing the Lease, the Tenant experienced financial difficulties that it attempted to resolve by changing its business. The Landlord refused to permit the proposed amended use because it violated existing exclusive use rights granted to other stores. The Landlord also rejected the Tenant's subsequent request to sublet the Premises to a pole dancing school. The Tenant eventually abandoned the Premises and the Landlord brought a claim for damages.

The Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench held that the Landlord had not unreasonably withheld its consent with respect to the Tenant's proposed amended use and the proposed sublease. The Court found that the Tenant's requested change in business to sell seasonal giftware and clothing was prohibited under the Lease and the Tenant was not entitled to reasonable consent. Further, the Landlord was entitled to reject the Tenant's request to sublease. The Landlord gave proper consideration to the Tenant's proposal and its decision was objectively reasonable given that: (1) the proposed subtenant's use would not fit in with the family-oriented character of the shopping mall, (2) the proposed subtenant desired to operate outside of normal business hours, and (3) the Landlord had previously declined to enter into a lease directly with the proposed subtenant. The Landlord was awarded the full amount of rent owing under the lease plus interest.

OPTIONS TO RENEW: On Which Terms and on Whose Form is a Renewal Term Formalized

The following two cases represent typical disputes that often arise out of uncertain renewal or extension lease provisions that leave decision making to a future time. Both 1251614 Ontario Ltd. v. Gurudutt Inc. and 1323677 Alberta Ltd. v. 334154 Alberta Ltd. involve a party taking issue with generally-accepted leasing practices and illustrate the lengths that a dissatisfied party will go to in order to undo an unfavourable (though agreed upon!) lease provision. Furthermore, both cases underscore the importance of including a mechanism for dispute resolution in the lease to avoid spending time and money on litigation in situations where the nature of the dispute lends itself to determination by binding arbitration.

1251614 Ontario Ltd. highlights the need for assignees to pay careful attention to special provisions when taking over a lease. In this case, the Original Tenant signed a Lease with an initial Term of 10 years plus two options to renew on the same terms and conditions as contained in the original lease, except the form of the renewal would be — at the Landlord's option — either an extension agreement or a brand new lease on the Landlord's then current standard form. During the initial Term, the Original Tenant transferred the Lease to the Plaintiff Tenant with the Landlord's consent.

The Plaintiff Tenant exercised its option to renew before the expiry of the initial Term and the Landlord provided its current standard form of lease, which was substantially similar to the existing Lease except that the current form contained a demolition clause. The Plaintiff Tenant refused to sign the current form, arguing that it had the right to renew the lease on the same terms and conditions as the existing Lease. The Landlord applied for an order to have the Plaintiff Tenant execute the current standard form as a precondition of exercising its renewal right.

The Ontario Superior Court held that the Plaintiff Tenant was obligated to sign the current standard form if it wished to renew. The Court emphasized that both parties were sophisticated business entities and counsel had reviewed the Lease before it was assigned without any objections. At the same time, the Court noted that the Landlord's right to use its current form meant that the new form could include material changes; otherwise, the right would have been meaningless.

A note to tenants: landlords include these types of renewal clauses in order to preserve their flexibility and control over future development opportunities and to ensure that their standard form lease can evolve over time. Tenants should always attempt to strike a landlord's right to require a tenant to enter into a new lease — there can never be certainty as to what a tenant may be compelled to agree to if it wants the benefit of the special rights (in this case, lease renewal) it bargained for at the outset.

The case of 1323677 Alberta Ltd. deals with the uncertainty of renewal rents when the lease provides for fair market rents. When the Tenant served notice of its intention to exercise an option to renew the Lease, the Landlord responded with an offer to enter into a new lease. The Tenant rejected the offer and the Landlord demanded that the Tenant vacate the Premises on the grounds that the renewal option was void for uncertainty since it failed to deal with future rents. The Tenant brought various applications against the Landlord for declaratory relief.

The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench considered whether the option to renew was enforceable. The renewal clause provided that the rent payable would be equal to "such amount of rent as shall be agreed between the parties based on market value and failing agreement shall be decided by arbitration." The Landlord argued that the renewal clause was void for uncertainty and relied on prior case law, which held that an option to renew may be void for uncertainty where the renewal rent will be agreed upon later.

The Court held that the renewal clause in question was enforceable because the amount of future rents was ascertainable with reasonable certainty. When the renewal clause was read contextually with the whole of the lease, the clause provided the formula and machinery to calculate future rents. Further, the fact that the Lease had been previously renewed suggested that the renewal clause contained in the existing Lease posed no difficulty for determining future rents.

DUTY OF HONEST PERFORMANCE: A Much-Needed Evolution of Canada's Common Law or an Onerous Standard?

While Canadian courts have previously been reluctant to find a stand-alone duty of good faith, the unanimous Supreme Court of Canada decision in Bhasin v. Hrynew clearly established a new duty of honest and good faith contractual performance. This landmark case marked the first time the SCC considered whether parties to a contract owe each other a duty of good faith in performing their contractual obligations.

When we included this case in our Summer 2015 Newsletter, it had yet to be seen how Bhasin would go on to shape business relationships and contractual performance. A decision of this magnitude was likely to pose more questions than answers in the short-term and commercial parties were advised to govern themselves accordingly in light of the fact that good faith and honesty were now part of the law.

As a reminder, this decision took "two incremental steps" to advance the common law of contracts in Canada: (1) the Court explored "good faith" as an organizing principle that manifests itself through existing legal doctrines, and (2) the Court characterized the "duty of honesty" as a general doctrine of contract law that applies to all contracts and cannot be excluded by an "entire agreement" clause. However, the new duty of honesty from Bhasin does not go so far as to impose a duty of loyalty or of disclosure. Furthermore, Bhasin only applies in the context of performing contractual obligations and not in negotiating these obligations.

Since the release of Bhasin, subsequent judicial decisions have shed some light on its meaning. The British Columbia Supreme Court in Burquitlam Care Society v. Fraser Health Authority aptly described Bhasin as an authority for the principle that parties to a contract "must not lie or otherwise knowingly mislead each other about matters directly linked to the performance of the contract."

As with any major decision, the legal community was concerned with how far courts would go to interpret contracts in order to give effect to the Bhasin decision. In Moulton Contracting Ltd. v. British Columbia, the British Columbia Court of Appeal clarified that Bhasin does not suggest that the two tests for implying terms at law and implying terms for business efficacy should be combined to reach a "hybrid law-fact conclusion on whether to imply terms."

The Alberta Court of Appeal in Scott & Associates Engineering Ltd. v. Finavera Renewables Inc. considered the Bhasin requirement that one contracting party have appropriate regard to the legitimate interests of the other contracting party. The Court in Scott & Associates held that "appropriate regard" does not require a party to serve those legitimate interests in all cases, but does require that the party not seek to undermine those interests.

Nearly 20 years after the Supreme Court of Canada in Wallace v. United Grain Growers Ltd. held that "good faith" may be "incapable of precise definition," a consistent definition for "good faith" is notably missing from Canadian common law. Accordingly, the practicality of "good faith" as a guiding principle continues to be questioned and the implication of Bhasin in this regard still remains to be seen.

Special acknowledgment and thanks to Carrington Hickey, Student-at-Law, for her assistance in preparing this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lindsay Kenney LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lindsay Kenney LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions