In response, the ministry said it was concerned to ensure that tenants should, if possible, receive the “health warning” in good time before committing to enter into a contracting out contract. They would then have time to think about the waiver of renewal rights and the practical possibility of considering other options. The Commission`s proposals, the ministry argued, do not necessarily succeed. While some tenants have been alerted to the awarding of proposals by seeing them in a draft rental agreement, in other cases, such as when the landlord tried to manipulate the tenant, the tenant only saw the “health warning” when he or she was about to sign the lease. It would then be too late to consider other arrangements, given that the tenant would have made commercial arrangements assuming that he would occupy the premises concerned.  Section 2 of the 1989 Act provides that leases (except for leases of less than three years at the best rent) must be set out in writing in a single document (or exchanged documents) signed by both parties. It is unlikely that a simple exchange of letters (including e-mails) will carry out these formalities. 24 In the event of an agreement to exclude the guarantee of ownership, a reference to the notice and declaration would appear in the deed creating the rental agreement or would be accompanied by a statement. In the case of a waiver agreement, a reference to the notice and statement would be included in the agreement or agreement. In this respect, the proposals would be similar to those that would apply if the minimum notice period of 14 days were not set (see footnote 15 above).
Return (In practice, if there is a prior agreement for leasing, the agreement on the self-contract will be included in the agreement for leasing and a reference to the development agreement will be included in the lease agreement.) In response to our concerns about the lack of an obligation to explain the tenant in cases where the 14-day notice period has been respected, the Ministry argued that it would be sufficient for the tenant to receive the notification and for the reference to it to be included or confirmed in the instrument that establishes the lease. The requirement for the tenant to sign a statement that he has read the health alert and accepted the consequences would be unnecessarily painful, according to the ministry, without increasing the proposed protection. The Ministry notes that such a declaration, made outside the lease, would have no legal effect, whereas any declaration within the lease would be legally superfluous, any presumption behind a contract being that each party accepts the consequences of each of the conditions: “The tenant must accept the consequences of the contract to agree”. The ministry also states that.” It is unlikely that a tenant who has not taken into account the content of a formal notice will pay more attention to him if he is invited to sign such a declaration. Finally, the ministry notes that it has “taken into account the need to compensate for the interests of large and small businesses” and proposes that a higher level of protection for small businesses may lead to unnecessary bureaucracy for large companies with greater capacity to access legal advice.  We accept the Ministry`s arguments regarding the use of a legal declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 in cases where there has been no 14-day notice. . . .