16
‚¿æJe1962 IsinoIo) .noH
agoidBaup ow‡ BIS SIGNI
siam sequel of bïajor ntiw noizinoy Lajnai saj (3)
baa
.[
སྙ་
,"law end szolea stoajdua juore of -JiBoy Jand wi won od me yɔiley to noitssup ent (d)
• noitaisijoi ça beitav sá bluong noi Toloniarieder med joi! even asumsi nove noiniqo yu NĨ
-:800889] „tiv o[[07/med
Bʻla yaw etotsu ei au ajostcnoo jaye vllasane) (a)
ed you frewestotne to Jagìt end ngưont „dresonni moniy bejabil and, nietotein..r rommal :bobneqava
POWO.A (SOEI) · BLI
beraifdatae an. to you uintiw List Jo). O sensei
.. i jelux evour and of Broù, qOOTS
--evene end to bis ui sa ajunsiNOU
319-0) - V Quadruk isutyeo Juniuga Cons
· II . 1 3 8 & (30μl)
ไมลด
(i).
e noiemqave to sidaysoni atostźnɔɔ (ii)
„(...MA) BOSHHERunï . y blogging :sqinezondrsq
. age of fol)
were add tði: amilaab zuivlovni aðssïjno) (iii)
:Jtog VLENG as wort suong gniyqina ka, ( ,ƐƏY 85 IV (Vdol) Jemon -v otieqve! derdɔvo sit netla nev. Joejowa yaona nim at easel A ni Jubiser araw seitïay ditod ti bilev ai tam to (vòdí),(......A) (realak or waiRNA) :YTOJITIOJ 100
-wollol med BAR EDİAW
[ad, anal 001 6830 tacit al
•
no 100%sel adð, množniceb amoİTomi reddo ni be -regilled Toidu and ye malisqre em „Joejaus vanus Jnesary eds edil yidearmant Ji vedam doliím,ðas
·
OBRO
Di noijosƐ,"ai nowsco da nocjineg edd ynied, out „slel,commubro (qu gaibuit) naimani umilk mis to -Josita mort somnibï0 Jait to gnisanq and adneveng
(d)
(0)
(b)
3.
ing the rights of lessors against any lessees affected by the Ordinance. This view is support-
ed by the inference to be drawn from Section 5(7) that contracts generally are to continue.
I II II It is to be remembered too that some of the lessees have not, and probably will not acquire, a hostile domicile.
That is not so clear is whether rent accrues during
war. Westlake, Phillipson and Bentwish think that it does, and with this view I humbly agree. Oppenheim thinks that it does not. Here again it must be remembered that in some cases there will be no question of a hostile domicile.
6.
The question of what would be the fairest policy as between the lessors and the lessees is a difficult one.
6.
7.
(a) On the one hand the lessors do not want to lose their
right of enforcing, on the conclusion of peace, all the terms of their leases, including the payment of rent during the war period.
(b) At the same time, they might like, and perhaps ought to
be empowered and required, to minimise the loss which will fall on one or other of the parties to the lease by re-letting the premises, during the war at least. (o) They think that if any loss is to be incurred it should
be borne by the subjects of the enemy state.
On the other hand it seems a hardship that the expelled enemy subjects should remain liable for the rent of premises which the State has prevented their being able to use.
8.
At first sight a possible solution would seem to be to give some powers of disclaimer, with liberty to prove for damage suffered; but the insufficiency of assets which seems likely in many cases would throw all the loss on the lessors.
9.
I think that this question is not of great urgency and
no decision need be come to for the moment.
10.
I would advise sending out a cicular letter to the