Reference no: EM133612966

Bo is interested in leasing an outlet near South Dock to run a fast-food noodle shop. The dock area is thriving, there are lots of other businesses and a huge block of apartments nearby. The rent is high, about $1,800 per week, with various penalties in the contract for breaking the lease earlier than the contracted period. Bo signs a contract with a two-year lease. For six months everything is fine, Bo is making money and he is paying all the bills. Then, after one year, the Dock outside the shop (the main thoroughfare for customers entering the shopping area) is declared to be faulty and unsafe. Customers cannot use the walkways, and there is restricted access to Bo's shop; indeed, many of the surrounding shops are now empty giving the area an eerie feeling. Bo informs the landlord that he is leaving and cannot pay any more rent. The landlord pleads with Bo to stay and promises he will be charged only $500 a week, which he can cover with his takeaway activities. However, at the end of the lease Bo decides he will now leave. The outraged landlord threatens Bo with a legal action for the original rent he should have paid. What are Bo's arguments to avoid having to pay the original rent?

Hint: Pinnel's Case, Je Maintiendrai Pty Ltd v Quaglia (1980) 26 SASR 101> Please write in ILAC method.