In the case of Pure Oil, what was determined regarding forfeiture in leases?

The determination in the case of Pure Oil regarding forfeiture in leases clarifies that a lessor is unable to declare forfeiture without express terms explicitly laid out in the lease agreement. This means that the lease must contain clear and specific language indicating the circumstances under which forfeiture can occur. This principle is significant as it protects the rights of lessees by ensuring that a lessor cannot arbitrarily terminate a lease agreement for noncompliance or failure to pay rent, unless those terms were agreed upon and documented beforehand.

The other answer options do not accurately reflect the legal standards as established in the case. The notion of automatic forfeiture for non-payment, while intuitive, does not align with the requirement of having express terms. Additionally, while not all leases may necessarily require an express forfeiture clause, the absence of such clauses does not imply that lessors have unrestricted power to terminate leases. Lastly, the idea that a lessee can never abandon the lease lacks nuance – lessees may choose to abandon leases, but this involves different considerations than forfeiture by the lessor. Thus, the ruling emphasizes the necessity for clarity in lease agreements concerning forfeiture.