EN
TR
For instance, the House of Lords in Liverpool Council v Irwin(236)…
“All these are not just facilities, or conveniences provided at discretion: they are essentials of the tenancy without which life in the dwellings, as a tenant, is not possible. To leave the landlord free of contractual obligation as regards these matters, and subject only to administrative or political pressure, is, in my opinion, inconsistent totally with the nature of this relationship. The subject matter of the lease (high rise blocks) and the relationship created by the tenancy demand, of their nature, some contractual obligation on the landlord.”(238)…
In Crossley v Faithful & Gould(239) the Court of Appeal refused to imply a term into every contract of employment that an employer must take reasonable care of its employees’ economic wellbeing, referred to as a “portmanteau obligation”. Dyson LJ (with whom the other two judges agreed) refused to imply the proposed terms principally on the basis that such implied term would “impose an unfair and unreasonable burden on employers”.
His Lordship also reasoned that it would be inappropriate for the courts “to take a big leap to introduce a major extension of the law”…
