Introduction When it comes to tenancy, obscure means are used by many landlords to save on costs as well time and procedures. A license to occupy has been suggested as used by property owners for the easier exercise of control over tenants and to further avoid swirling mists and high costs of solicitors (Net Lawman, 2007). Discussion As a trainee in the firm of solicitors consulted by Alfred Micawber, a client of the firm who entered into a written agreement headed “License” in November 2002 with Botolphs Investments. Micawber was given the right to use and occupy a ground floor unit, which had formerly been used as a printshop, as a workshop and store. The agreement provided for the payment of a license fee of £350 per calendar month and that the agreement should be determinable by three months’ notice in writing on either side. The agreement further provided, inter alia, that: “this licence is personal to the licensee.” “this licence confers no exclusive right for the licensee to use and occupy the premises.” “the licensee shall permit the licensor to enter the premises with necessary workpersons and equipment in order to carry out any work deemed necessary.” In July 2007, Botolphs served notice on Micawber to determine the agreement in October 2007. As a trainee, I would present the following to my principal. Avoidance techniques as has been mentioned earlier involve two ways: re-routing the legal relationship so as to take it outside the remit of the protective legislation, and involving some provision within the tenancy agreement that seeks to avoid statutory control (Bright, 2002). Use of license instead of a lease has been included as an example of re-routing resulting in unregulated occupancy. As has been clearly indicated in the 2004 case David George King et al v. Brandywine Reinsurance Co (UK) Ltd.: “In determining the meaning of the language of a commercial contract, and unilateral contractual notices, the law therefore generally favours a commercially sensible construction. The reason for this approach is that a commercial construction is more likely to give effect to the intention of the parties. Words are therefore interpreted in the way in which a reasonable commercial person would construe them. And the standard of the reasonable commercial person is hostile to technical interpretations and undue emphasis on niceties of language.” (Crown Copyright, 2004). Likewise, as provided for in the Law of Property Act 1989 (C.34), under Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing, it was indicated that: 2.—(1) A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each. Micawber and the landlord made arrangements about the tenancy, yet the landlord have chosen to use a License to occupy instead. These are, in consideration, part of the tenancy agreement as long as they do not conflict with law. Micawber and Botolphs have rights and responsibilities given by law. The agreement, disguised as a License to occupy give both Micawber and Botlphs more than statutory rights, but ca