Similarly, Lawrence Barker, Inc. v. Briggs, supra, 39 Cal. 2d 654, 664-665, an express leasing clause allowed the lessor to reinstate and re-enter the late lease as a tenant “or in some other way” without terminating the lease. The underwriter also provided that in the event of a late payment by the lessor, the lessor could sell certain stocks of co-occupation of the taker as collateral for the performance of the taker`s obligations. We felt that in the event of a late payment, the lessor could maintain an ejection action while maintaining the securities, since the tenant believes that the recovery of the landlord`s property led to the forfeiture of the tenancy agreement. We took over the holding company of Grommes v. Paul Trust Co. (1893) 147 Iii. 634 [35 N.E.
820, 822], as in Burke v. Norton (1919) 42 Cal. App. 705, 709 [184 pp. 45]: “There is nothing illegal or inappropriate in an agreement that the tenant`s obligation to pay the full rent until the end of the term remains, regardless of a late re-entry; and if the parties opt for such an agreement, we see no reason why it should not be valid for both the tenant and his guarantees. [16 Cal.3d 460] 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.) In addition, practical considerations support the applicability of the clause in question. The invoice shows that the equipment of the restaurant rented here was acquired by sellers selected by the taker and the parties seem to admit that it was installed for the most part and permanently on the land rented by the taker. Devices of this type devalue with use, are subject to heavy wear and have a relatively short lifespan. In these circumstances, attempts to lease the equipment may be unsuccessful, as provided by the counting statement itself. [16 Cal.3d 461] Alt Corporation enters into an agreement with Yates Rentals Co.
on January 1, 2018 to lease a machine for use in its production plants. The following data refer to the agreement:  When a buyer renounces to rent a rental property or indicates another intention to terminate a lease in full, the lessor may choose, even without explicit agreement, between three options of action: 1) it may accept (1) the abandonment of its lease obligation by the lessor and thus terminate other obligations of one of the parties under the lease; (2) rely on the tenancy agreement and take legal action for each rent owed; or (3) the landlord`s advice to reintegrate the property or recover it, to repay it on behalf of the lessor and to claim damages to recover the excess of the total rent that has been reserved on the sums made by the relocation. (De Hart v. Allen (1945) 26 Cal. 2d 829, 832 [161 p.2d 453]; B.K.K. Co. v. Schultz (1970) 7 Cal.
App.3d 786, 790 [86 Cal. Rptr. 760]; Phillips-Hollman, Inc. v. Peerless Stages, Inc. (1930) 210 Cal. 253, 258 [291 pp. 178]; Dickinson v. Electric Corp. (1935) 10 Cal. About 2d 207, 210 [51 p.2d 205]; See in general, 3 Witkin, Cal summary.