Ok a big question for the legal guns. A lifetime ago i signed a lease with a medium sized shopping centre. I received a bit of financial help from the centre. I was only in the lease for about a year and decided to sell my business for personal reasons. And reassign the lease. Now. There was a clause in there that said "if i abandon the premises, the financial help would have to be paid back pro rata of the lease" After spending thousands of dollars through a lawyer fighting this. I ended up winning, as it wasnt loose change. I cant remebwr the exact terminology but my lawyer said it was poorly worded. My lawyer suggested that term "abandon" meant i was going to leave it empty. So in my case i wasnt abandoning the lease. Merely reassigning it. And this was our main defence. However . (Is this a stroke of genious??) My suggestion was that I was the sole director of the company that signed the lease and i held all the shares worth $12. I suggested to my lawyer that if the above first argument doesnt work or isnt strong enough. I could simply give all my shares to the new owner (we had a buyer already sign the contract at this point) and he would become the new sole director so no clauses would be triggered as the same company is tied to the lease. Would transferring the shares had worked??? Just remimiscing the good old days!