I have spoken twice with my roommate about the break clause, and she has agreed orally and in writing to break the lease in May, but she has often said that she has money problems and that she may change her mind about termination. To break the lease, we both have an obligation to make a communication, my communication will not be sufficient. In addition, the termination clause itself states that they need a written communication from both of us to terminate the contract, which I do not think is fair. This actually happened with the other lease, where the agency stated that they could not take into account a simple communication, but in this case we have two notifications and we left after the initial 12-month period to move into the new house. Does that mean that if she wants to stay and I want to leave, I can`t leave the lease and I`m stuck with someone who doesn`t want to accept that we`re equal in the contract? I have read on the Internet that in the case of collective rental, agencies or landlords expect us to solve our own problems, but the only solution to this problem is the violation of rent and rent separately. Should I involve the Agency and inform it of these recurring problems and ask it to take action? I would not object to being removed from the contract as long as I have recovered my share of the deposit, but if I give up, I doubt that she will return the money to me immediately because of her money problems – the lease clearly states that if one tenant leaves, the other must repay the part of the deposit. I don`t think this situation is fair, because if they find a new tenant, that person will live there on my deposit money, and if they keep renting there for two years, does that mean I`ll see the deposit in my account in 2 years? It seems to me that your landlord is actually violating the agreement, he will indicate the names of the tenants and most tenants have rules about customers, how long they can stay, etc. Ironically, if it were a purely contractual issue, as I understand it, the need for a weakening applies: Reichman is based on the fact that a lease is governed by property rights and not by contractual law. The rent is due to the agreed intervals for the remainder of the lease, as the tenant cannot unilaterally terminate the contract. So, hypothetically, the tenant, even if he no longer lives, still enjoys all the rights to silent enjoyment, etc.? In Toogood, after the tenants left, the landlord did more important work, thus terminating the lease, but would a minor injury have been enough? However, the cost of a new tenant is the cost that the lessor would have to bear at the end of six months anyway, so that, in the event of a reasonable termination, it is not reasonable to charge more than a proportionate fraction of a reasonable amount.