He says that if Mr Jagger wants to take the room the shortest term he will agree is one year, and he requires Mr Jagger to sign an agreement (which he produces and gives to Mr Jagger). Mr Jagger likes the room, and says he's 'happy with a one-year deal', but also says he wants to look at the form of agreement and possibly take advice on it before signing it, but he does need to move in immediately. He offers Mr Richards a month rent 'upfront'. Mr Richards accepts this, and allows Jagger to move in immediately. He says, however, that Jagger's occupation will be on the terms of 'that agreement in your hand unless we agree something different', and they agree that in due course they will formalise the arrangement by signing an appropriate document.
Mr Jagger looks at the agreement. It is headed 'Licence', indicates a 'licence period' of one year, a weekly licence fee of 75 and states (amongst other things) that Mr Richards is at liberty to require Mr Jagger to share the room with any third party whom Mr Richards wishes to put into occupation.
Explain, by full reference to the background law, the status of the interest (if any) which Mr Jagger has in the room in Mr Richards' house and how such interest came to be (or failed to be) created and whether, in consequence, it is open to Mr Jagger to leave without further liability either immediately or at some point prior to the expiry of a year after he moved in.
In regards to common law, the licence is not legally binding because Mr Jagger did not sign it. Mr Jagger holds a licence to use the assigned room in Mr Richards home. A licence is only a personal permission, not transferable and is not binding. If Mr. Jaggar would be a tenant, he could have a legal estate which can be inherited or transferred, and is binding on third parties. A tenancy will have a great deal of statutory protection, particularly relating to security of tenure; a licence can be terminated easily (subject to any contractual agreement) and even the residential licensee has only minimal statutory protection under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977, not amounting to security of tenure. Mr Jagger's interest came to be when he and Mr Richards verbally agreed to a "one year deal". A licence is merely permission to use the premise it is not a lease. If no contract were created at all, it would still be considered a licence because the grantor obtains the right to use the entire premise. The giving and accepting of rent does not define a tenancy. Since this is only a licence to use the premise Mr Jagger has no further obligation to Mr Richards. If it is a tenancy it would be created formally by deed (unless within the exceptions under Law of Property Act 1925 S.54). If