Kinds of improper wordings or self-conflicting terms which can undermine the effect of an agreement
<p>When there’re improper wordings or self-conflicting terms in an agreement, what factors should be considered to determine whether the effect of the agreement is undermined?</p>
<p>For example:
A tenancy agreement has been created between a landlord A and a tenant B. B pays the rents to A to rent the place. But one (the first) clause in the agreement read: <strong>Outlines the arrangement and terms of the tenant to rent as a subtenant of the landlord through a sublease of the premises of ADDRESS OF THE PLACE</strong></p>
<p>In this case, B pays the rents to the landlord to rent the place, he/she should be considered as a tenant, but the above-mentioned clause states that the tenant rent as a subtenant, which may cause confusions. But is that confusing enough such that the enforceability of the agreement is undermined?</p>

<blockquote>
<p>is that confusing enough such that the enforceability of the agreement is undermined?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. Inaccurate labels are unlikely to prevent the parties and the fact-finder from ascertaining the intent and legal implications of the agreement. Nor can the improper labels overcome the <em>non sequitur</em> of a landlord leasing directly to a &quot;subtenant&quot;, that is, with no underlying tenant(s) as legal link between the parties to that agreement.</p>
<p>Where the use of inaccurate labels would elude non-waivable statutory provisions, those labels are stripped of their nominal effect and the agreement would be enforced as if it used the proper labels.</p>
<p>In the scenario you outline, <em>B</em> is in fact a tenant regardless of how he is labeled in the agreement. Landlord <em>A</em> cannot get away with violating <em>B</em>'s statutory rights under the pretext that pursuant to the agreement <em>B</em> is a subtenant rather than a tenant.</p>

contract-law tenant