LAWS 205 - contractual liscences

Front

What is the first distiction between a contratcual liscence and a bare liscence?

Back

Unlike a bare liscence, a contractual liscence needs valuable consideration to be enforceable. This means that both parties need to contribute something of value, in order for the contractual liscence to be enforeceable.

Front

When might a contractual liscnce be used?

Back

A contractual liscecne is used in cases where there is a long term relationship between the liscencor and the liscencee.

Front

Give an example of a contractual liscence and how it operates.

Back

A motel is operated under a contractual liscence. This is because the liscencee does not have a propreitary interest in the motel, the liscnecee is simply being allowed to enter onto the land (the motel), in exchange for valuable consideration (the money that you pay in order to stay in the motel).

Front

Who decides as to whether or not the liscencees conduct is in violation of the terms of the liscence?

Back

The terms of the contractual liscence are entirley upon the discretion of the liscencor. In other words, the liscencor decides as to what is or is not nuscance, damage etc., not he common law.

Front

What distiguishes liscences from leases and what is the authority for this.

Back

In the case of Fatac, the court held that in order to distinguish liscences from leases, the court must assess as to whether or not exclusive possesion was granted. If it was, then it is a lease, if it wasn't, then it is a liscence.

Front

What is one way that a court can assess, as to whether or not exclusive possesion was granted, and give authority for this?

Back

In the case of Fatac, the court held that exclusive possession grants quiet enjoyment of the land by excluding others. This is unlike licenses which merely grant a permissive entry onto the property, subject to terms within the license. 

Front

What is another way that a court can assess, as to whether or not exclusive possesion was granted, and give authority for this?

Back

In the case of Fatac, the court held that in order for exclusive possesion to exist, there must be some defined/minimum/finite amount of time stated in the terms.