Shopping Centre Development

Question: Discuss about the Shopping Centre Development. Answer: Introduction: In this case Emile and Laila will lose their business and it is clearly due to the fault of their lawyer that they have to lose their business. According to Benghoune, (2013 p, 19) during the agreement It is extremely important to understand every clause especially demolition clauses if any. Their Lawyer should have been a bit more proactive in making them understand the demolition clause. Since they appointed a solicitor to handle their transaction with the landlord Dentro it was the fault of the solicitor that the person did not give all the information by reading out the agreement to the clients Emile and Laila. Hence it could be said that in this case the main fault for Emlie and Laila to lose their business is the solicitor. Yes, Laila and Emile could file for compensation as per the rules and regulations of the Australian law. As per the Retail Leases Act 1994 Section 35 that mainly highlights the clause of demolition in lease contract states that in case the landlord is planning to demolish the part where the retail business is located in this circumstances the landlord is obligated to provide a notice period of at least six months which will help the help the business to prepare for the future (Buchan Butcher, 2009 p, 12). It also says that the landlord will have to provide a clear and valid point as well as a plan for the demolition by a reasonably practicable time before the building is to be demolished (Dawson Lord, 2012 p, 54). In this case Dentro has clearly not conformed to any of the regulations of the above act and did not even inform the business owners Emile and Laila about the demolition. It is clearly stated in the Retail Leases Act 1994 Sect 35 that if a lease is to be terminated on suc h grounds the landlord or the lessor is liable to pay compensation to the lessee for the fit outs of the shop (Morris Peppler, 2012 p, 65). In this case the landlord Dentro neglected the regulations laid down by the above act and it is important to mention that in this case he is liable to punished for neglecting the government policies. The term demolition was clearly showed in the case of Blackler v Felpure Pty Ltd(1999) 9 BPR 17,259 where the judge was pretty clear about the term demolition and also gave verdict in favor of the landlord clearly had a genuine proposal which was given by Blackler the landlord but in this case it was not done. In this case the Retail Leases Act 1994 has not been abided by which asks for compensation from the lessor. Overall from the above issue it could be said that in this case the lessee Emile and Laila didnt have proper knowledge about the demolition clause as their solicitor did not inform them about this and on the other hand the landlord didn t work as per law and hence the lessee Emile and Laila are entitled to compensation (Stoop, 2009 p, 32). References Benghoune, S. (2013).The Legal Protection of the Small Retailer in the Shopping Center(Doctoral dissertation). Buchan, J., Butcher, B. (2009). Premises occupancy models for franchised retail businesses in Australia: Factors for consideration.Australian Property Law Journal,17, 143-178. Dawson, J., Lord, D. (Eds.). (2012).Shopping Centre Development (RLE Retailing and Distribution). Routledge. Morris, S., Peppler, E. (2012). 2011: A year in review.Planning News,38(2), 17. Stoop, P. (2009). Law of Lease, The.Ann. Surv. S. African L., 860. Case Law: Blackler v Felpure Pty Ltd(1999) 9 BPR 17,259