Case Study in Landlord-Tennant Law

Prompt: “Sam Stevens lives in an apartment building where he has been working on his new invention, a machine that plays the sound of a barking dog to scare off potential intruders. A national chain store that sells safety products wants to sell Sam’s product exclusively. Although Sam and the chain store never signed a contract, Sam verbally told a store manager several months ago that he would ship 1,000 units.  

Sam comes home from work one day and finds two letters in his mailbox. One is an eviction notice from his landlord, Quinn, telling him he has to be out of the apartment in 30 days because his barking device has been bothering the other tenants. It also states that Sam was not allowed to conduct a business from his apartment. Sam is angry because he specifically told Quinn that he was working on a new invention, and Quinn had wished him luck. The second letter is from the chain store, demanding that Sam deliver the promised 1,000 units immediately.”

In this study case, the chain store agreed that it would sell Sam's devices exclusively if he could make them 1,000 units. To determine if there was a valid contract between the two parties, the four elements needed are the agreement, consideration, the legal object, and the contractual capacity. The contractual capacity says that both of the parties have the ability to legally enter a contract. If in fact, either parties were minors or suffered from a mental disease or one party was drunk during the agreement, the contract would be invalid. If Sam had been a minor than he would have to wait until he became older for the contract to be legally affirmed and ratified. The ultimate element of a contract is legal object, meaning the contract can't be illegal or violate state and federal statutes. In this case study, Sam Stevens is a tenant who has just received an eviction notice from his landlord Quinn. The letters were sent to notify Sam that he is being evicted due to the disturbance from his invention, a device that he created in his apartment that scares off intruders by making the sounds of a dog barking. Sam also has received an additional letter from the store asking for the 1,000 dog barking devices that Sam and the chain store have verbally agreed upon to be delivered immediately.

With the other letter Sam got from the chain store requesting their 1000 units Sam had verbally settled upon, on the grounds that it was a verbal understanding and not composed, Sam doesn't have to finish that solicitation, particularly realizing he is under the way toward getting ousted by his landlord. Be that as it may, a "statue of frauds" would have been more specific if gotten in writing. The statue of frauds shields promisors from oral agreements that can't be conveyed. Right now, was no composed detail on when and if Sam needs to convey 1,000 units. In any case, there are special cases to the statue of fakes that can bolster the mainstream store stores solicitation to have their gadgets conveyed. On the off chance that there was Admission of an oral understanding by Sam at a legitimate continuing, if there was halfway execution, which decides the activities of the two gatherings exhibits their understanding is as yet substantial. Realizing Sam was making the units for the store shows halfway execution. There is additionally promissory estopal, which one gathering who is dependent on the understanding and the other party knows the other party "needs" this consent to fail to work out. Right now, with the data given, neither one of the parties is dependent on the verbal understandings. The last exemption to a statue of frauds is the special cases under the UCC expressing that oral agreements between two gatherings don't should be recorded as a hard copy if there is an understanding. It additionally states oral agreements for modified merchandise can be upheld in light of the fact that redid products may not be attractive to general society and misfortunes got from the gathering that was still in understanding might be hard to recover. On the off chance that Sam and the chain store would have been associated with a quasi contract, now and again called an inferred in-law contract, which is characterized as a court-forced legally binding commitment to forestall vile improvement. Right now, a quasi contract may exist if Sam was furnished with pay already to giving the item or if the chain store was anticipating selling the item without giving Sam the fitting pay for his item.

The rights and commitments of both the proprietor and the inhabitant rely on the provisions of their agreement. Such an agreement might be verbal or recorded as a hard copy under a standard private rent understanding. A few realities that may bolster Sam is in break of that agreement are on the off chance that he broke the pledge of peaceful enjoyment, as a result of the other inhabitants' protests. A few realities that may bolster that Sam isn't in break of agreement are the way that the landowner realized he was building up another development and even wished him karma. In light of these rights and commitments, Sam's proprietor has grounds to expel him since he abused the pledge of calm delight. It is the proprietor's duty to guarantee the contract of calm delight within the building, and if occupants are causing clamor that damages this, landowners should rapidly fix the issue so the remainder of the occupants don't leave the property. The fact that Sam’s landlord never gave him the opportunity to fix the issue at bay, Sam could use it as an appeal. It’s hard to fix an issue no one tells you it’s a problem, so this maybe could have been an easy fix for Sam that could have avoided his eviction.

References:

• Kubasek, B. H. (2017). Landlord-Tenant Law. In B. H. Kubasek, Business Law –Dynamic Business Law (Ch. 49 & 50). McGraw Hill Education.
• Landlord-Tenant Law. (ND). Legal Information Institute.  Retrieved from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/landlord-tenant_law