Arnold kazery was the owner of a hotel leased to george wilkinson. the lease included renewal options of ten years each. when arnold transferred his interest in the property to his son, sam, no one notified wilkinson. for the next twenty years, wilkinson paid the rent to arnold and renewed the lease by notice to arnold. when wilkinson wrote to arnold that he was exercising another option to renew, sam filed a suit against him, claiming that the lease was void.

did wilkinson give proper notice to renew? discuss

Mr. Wilkinson did give proper notice to renew

Explanation:

Wilkinson was a tenant of the hotel originally owned by Mr. Arnold. Wilkinson did give the proper notice to renew, as long as it was originally stated in the tenant agreement.

Now he has the problem that the lease is supposedly void. In this case, those who would be at fault are Mr. Arnold and his son Sam, who should have notified the tenant in a reliable manner of the transfer of the property. The latter may plead a counterclaim for malice or fraud, as Mr. Arnold accepted payment of the rent without mentioning that the owner of the property had changed.

Have a nice day!

Yes, Wilkinson gave proper notice to quit.

Explanation:

The lease agreement is a valid contract between Wilkson and Arnold, the basis for the renewal is a for Wilkson to inform Arnold, since notice has been passed to Arnold of intention to renew lease and payment has been made the renewal is valid.

The transfer of property right to Sam does not invalidate the renewal for Wilkson was not aware of it and the time lapse is enough for Sam to raise objections.

However Sam has the right to reject the new lease renewal notice, since he now has the right to the property.

answer; /// i believe the correct answer is (all of the above);

you have to put the parentheses like this:

in fact, you have to perform the operation inside parentheses first, and then proceed in order: