-1

Paul Davies. JC Smith's The Law of Contract (2018 2 ed). p. 162.

enter image description here

I willfully uploaded a picture, rather than transcribing text, to prove that I didn't mistype anything.

Kindly see the red underline. Why isn't "year" "yearly"?

  • It is yearly, if you look at the judgment - it's just a typo in the textbook. – Minty Apr 20 at 6:49
  • Yes, I can confirm from two sources the original is "yearly". Also I note that the landlord is the Lessor, so to say that the landlords were to pay to the Lessor doesn't make sense to me. Someone enlighten me if I'm wrong. Edit: That's not to say "year's sum" or "year sum" is ungrammatical. I think both are acceptable, though "year sum" is harder to understand. – Zebrafish Apr 20 at 7:40
  • @Zebrafish I understood the "landlord/lessor" relationship to be one where the Lessors held the freehold and were responsible for overall maintenance, that they sold the chalets to the landlords on leasehold terms and that the landlords then rented the chalets to tenant holidaymakers on a weekly or daily basis. If the holidaymakers were the direct tenants of the Lessors the idea of a "year sum" that they had to pay would be almost meaningless. – BoldBen Apr 20 at 7:59
  • @BoldBen Thanks. I wonder if this ought be migrated to Law SE? – Antinatalist Chrome Apr 20 at 22:26
  • I don't think it needs migrating, your original question was about language and both Minty and @Zebrafish say that it's a typo in the textbook. Zebrafish raised a possible legal point but seems to like my suggested interpretation. If Minty and/or Zebrafish were to post their comments as answers you could accept one and the question would be sorted. – BoldBen Apr 22 at 2:06

Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.