358 = 92 
English Land Law. 
stamped before it can be used in evidence. The convenience of 
any such imperfect memorandum of the terms of the holding 
appears very doubtful, since parol testimony is generally in 
strictness admissible to vary or add to the conditions expressed, 
and the certainty which is the chief object of employing a 
written instrument at all is thus unattainable. If this result is 
secured, the document at once becomes either an agreement or 
an actual lease, and might just as well have taken that form in 
the first instance. 
Agreement for (2) and (3.) Agreement for a future Demise. — The distinction 
^tenancy. between this species of contract and a lease has been already 
pointed out ; but the legal position of a tenant who enters either 
designedly under such an agreement, or under an instrument 
void as a present demise by reason of its exceeding the statutory 
term, is peculiar. He may at any time compel specific perform- 
ance of the landlord's undertaking to let ; and on refusal to grant 
or accept a lease, either party may bring an action against the 
other to recover damages for the breach of the agreement. Bu 
the mere fact that such an agreement has been entered into afford 
in itself no defence to an action of ejectment ; and the tenan 
who has entered and paid rent on the faith of it has no direc 
defence except that provided by the common law, which consti 
tutes him, as already explained, a tenant from year to yeai 
whose holding can only be terminated by a six months' notic 
to quit. The conditions expressed in the agreement are in othe 
respects considered applicable to his occupation ; and in tb 
majority of cases, other than those of a parol demise from ye; 
to year, both parties are content to acquiesce in the imperfei 
relation thus constituted until the expiration of the contemplate 
term. 
Freedom of It is hardly necessary to observe that the perfect freedom 
coatrsct. contract thus enjoyed by landlord and tenant, as' by all oth 
parties to an agreement, is absolutely essential for the protectic 
of the rights of each, in a country where such varieties of so 
of climate, and of custom exist. No attempt at stereotyping 
form of agreement, which should be applicable to all cases i 
discriminately, could be otherwise than pernicious to the intere 
of agriculture in general. The very fact that the diversities 
custom already mentioned have grown up, not merely in ; 
joining counties, but in adjoining districts and even, parisl) 
is the strongest imaginable proof that compulsory uniform! 
which has proved itself impossible in the experience of previi ' 
generations, would be found equally impracticable now. > 
general agreement could be devised which would not in so 
degree either exclude or adopt the customs which already exi 
and as the customs so excluded or adopted were found to di r 
