In most cases, a tenant must comply with the terms of a tenancy agreement until a tenancy agreement expires. There are, however, a few exceptions, including: only the validity of a provision in a private real estate loan allowing the resale of the rented chatl is raised, and the immediate recovery of a possible default of rent reserved by the tenant [16 Cal.3d 454] default. We conclude that the judgment of the court must be set aside and that the cause of another trial must be remanded in custody. After the sale, the applicant brought this appeal on the ground that he was entitled, under the terms of the tenancy agreement, to recover the total rent reserved in the tenancy agreement, plus the costs incurred during the completion of the public sale, reduced by the total amount collected by the sale of the equipment, the rent already paid , a deposit previously paid by the defendants and a discount on the cash value of future rents. The plaintiff calculates the total amount owed under this formula at USD 10,901.50, plus interest of 8 per cent per annum from and after June 26, 1973 (the date of the sale), plus reasonable legal fees of $3,000. Traditionally, a landlord who wants to recover rent or compensation from a failing tenant is obliged to wait until the end of the rental period (where damages are claimed for infringement) or until a certain rental rate is actually incurred (where the rent is claimed). (z.B. Treff v. Gulko (1932) 214 Cal. 591, 593 [7 p.2d 697]; Phillips-Hollman, Inc. v. Peerless Stages, Inc., supra, 210 Cal.
253, 258; 3 Witkin, Cal summary. Law, supra, Real Property, 515-516, 2186-2187; See civ. Code, nos. 1951.2, 3308, s. The reason for these decisions was that it was only when the life of life or the expiry of a lease brake that the amount actually owed could be determined accurately. (3 Witkin, supra.) In light of these provisions, the Apex Court decided in the above case, as part of a translucent « sales contract » between the parties and the terms of the agreement, that neither the terms of the agreement should be construed as the intention of the parties to abandon the lease, nor the terms of the agreement. Similarly, Challenge-Cook Bros., Inc. Lantz (1967) has 256 Cal. About 2d 536 [64 Cal. Rptr.
239, does not comfort the accused. Admittedly, the Court of Appeal proposed that a lessor could not claim damages for loss of rent under a lease agreement whose rent is due periods after the lessor sold the recovered Chatl, since the lessor is no longer « ready, able and willing » to meet its obligations under the post-sale tenancy agreement. (Id., 547.) However, the language of the court is only dikta, since the owners have only attempted to recover there for periods prior to the sale. (In fact, the lessors had kept the chatl repaired for a longer period of time and had finally sold it only a few months before the natural expiration of the lifespan.) The Apex Court found that the terms of the agreement do not justify an express surrender under Section 111 (e) or a tacit surrender under Section 111 (f) of the Act, so that the lease agreement between the parties did not end up at its destination solely because of the performance of the sales contract. The terms of the agreement were examined very closely to determine whether the implementation of the agreement would, in any way, lead to a provision of the lease between the parties with respect to the ownership under the law and not beyond. We find that the leasing transaction is a valuable commercial financing tool that generally offers significant benefits to tenants and landlords.