analyze the cases in the Questions and Problems based on the group to which your instructor assigns you.
analyze (4 and 5) cases in Dynamic Business Law
analyze (6 and 7) cases in Dynamic Business Law
For each assigned case, analyze the issue based on the following criteria:
Identify the parties involved in the case dispute (who is the plaintiff and who is the defendant).
Identify the facts associated with the case and fact patterns.
Develop the appropriate legal issue(s) in question (i.e., the specific legal issue between the two parties).Provide a judgment on who should win the case – be clear.
Support your decision with an appropriate rule of law.
Be prepared to defend your decision and to objectively evaluate the other points of view.
see the images to analyze cases .
No matching ratio
QUESTIONS & PROBLEMS
2.
1. What is the most distinguishing element of a land-
lord-tenant relationship?
As a tenant, what are the remedies available to you
if the landlord breaches the implied warranty of
habitability?
3. Explain the distinction between assignment and
sublease.
4. In February 1998, Sutton Moore fell through a deck
when he was visiting Jonathan and Kelly Ham-
brick. Moore was a guest of the Hambricks, who
rented a house owned and maintained by Dennis
Huard and his spouse. The Huards indicated that
they maintained the deck regularly, having replaced
Totten posts in 1995 and a broken step in 1997. The
Hambricks had not noticed or reported any prob.
lems with the deck. Moore sued the Huards for
negligence. What duty do the Huards, as landlords,
owe to Moore, guests of the tenants? Who won?
[Moore v. Huard, No. 31907-1-11, Slip. Op. (Wash.
App Div. 2, 2006).]
5. The Plaintiffs resided at a residential property
located at 29 Spring Street, West Warwick, Rhode
Island (Property). Plaintiffs Gregoire and Traynor
entered into a residential lease agreement with Due
North Investments, LLC (Due North).
Baird Properties, LLC (Baird, or landlord) held
a mortgage on the Property. As a result of default
by Due North, Baird foreclosed on the Property
and acquired title to the Property by way of a fore-
closure deed recorded on December 5, 2012. By
letter dated September 7, 2012, Baird notified ten-
ants, including those residing at the Property, that it
was acting on behalf of Southbridge Savings Bank
(Southbridge) and that as of that date all rental pay
ments should be made to Southbridge and delivered
to Baird. The letter also stated that rental payments
should no longer be paid to either Due North or its
principals, Robert and Linda Carye. The following
day. Due North sent a letter to the tenants advising
that, until an actual foreclosure deed is recorded,
rent must be paid to Due North, and that the let-
ter sent the previous day from Baird should be
ignored. Furthermore, the letter stated that Michael
Baird and any employee or agent of Baird were
forbidden from entry on the Property. Finally, Due
North represented itself as owner and landlord of
the Property and stated that the tenants remained
tenants of Due North and that rent was timely due
to Due North, with the consequence of eviction if
the rent was not timely paid to Due North. As a
result of this confusion and upon advice of counsel. ,
the tenants did not pay the November 2012 rent to
either Due North or Baird. The tenants were cur
rent with Due North for all rent due through Octo-
ber 2012. Defendant Michael Baird is the principal
Chapter 50 Landlord-Tenant Low
1165
of the landlord, Baird, and, at all times pertinent to 7. On June 3. 2002. Martin Gans sent a letter to his
this action, acted as an agent of the landlord, and landlord attempting to extend his lease for another
not individually
five years. The original lease stated: “To exercise
Mr. Traynor and Ms. Gregoire testified cred- Tenant’s options to extend tenant must notify Land-
ibly that, amidst this ownership confusion. Mr. lord in writing on or before 60 days before the date
Baird showed up at the Property, unannounced, on of expiration of the within Lease: Notices by Tenant
December 9, 2012. He commenced a conversation to Landlord shall be in writing and deposited in the
with Mr. Traynor and Ms. Gregoire on the sidewalk United States mail, postage prepaid, certified or reg-
outside the Property. He stated that if they wished istered, addressed to Landlord. However, the lease
to continue their tenancy at the Property, they had term expired on July 31, 2002. The 60th day before
to appear at his office before noon the next day to the expiration date was Saturday, June 1, 2002. On
sign a new lease, pay back rent, and pay an addi- Monday, June 3. 2002. Gans attempted to exer-
tional security deposit. Mr. Baird stated that fail. cise the option to extend the lease by letter sent to
ure to appear at his office the following day would L. C. Smull by regular mail. On June 13, 2002, the
result in his turning off the water and electricity. landlord wrote back, stating that Gans’s request was
Ms. Gregoire corroborated Mr. Traynor’s descrip- “untimely.” Smull also wrote: “Please be advised that
tion of what Mr. Baird had told them that morning, the Landlord has elected to cancel your lease at the
She characterized Mr. Baird’s statement as a threat. expiration on July 31, 2002, at which time you are
Ms. Gregoire and Mr. Traynor testified that they to vacate the premises.” Gans claimed that he waited
had paid the September and October 2012 rent and until Monday to send the request as, according to the
the security deposit to Due North, but that, due to Code of Civil Conduct, if the last day to perform an
the conflicting letters received in September 2012. act provided or required by law within a specified
and upon advice of counsel, they did not pay the period of time is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, then
November 2012 rent either to Due North or Baird that period is extended to the next day provided this
Do you think that the plaintiffs can be required to day is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Was Smull
pay rent to Baird? Does the new owner of the prop- right in evicting Gans? Why or why not? [Gants
erty have the right to threaten the plaintiffs if they Smull, 111 Cal. App. 4th 985 (Aug. 29, 2003).]
do not sign a new lease? Gregoire , Baird Props.. 8. A plaintiff, Virginia Auster, brought an action to
LLC, Rhode Island Supreme Court, 2016.1
recover damages for personal injuries alleged to
6. A landlord filed a nonpayment proceeding to have been caused by the dog of an employee of the
recover possession of the 1st Floor at 49 Water defendant, Norwalk United Methodist Church. Ms.
Lane North. Levittown, New York. The tenant Auster was a visitor who was on the premises to
allegedly owed the petitioner the sum of $9,970.00. attend a meeting in the parish house. The plaintiff
The tenant claimed that the petitioner failed to was early for the meeting, and when she arrived,
demand payment of rent or serve a requisite three the front door of the parish house was locked. The
days’ notice in writing requiring, in the alternative, plaintiff walked around to the side of the parish
the payment of the rent, or the possession of the house to find someone to unlock the door. She went
premises as required under RPAPL $ 711(2), The to the side stairway that led up to Salinas’ living
landlord claimed that he had demanded the rent quarters. There was a landing on the top of the
personally from the tenant since it became due. The stairway that led to an indoor porch that connected
tenant further claimed that he had not been served, to Salinas’ kitchen. When the plaintiff reached the
personally, with any notice or demand. The land top of the stairway, she raised her voice to see if
lord claims that under New York law an oral anyone was home at Salinas’ residence. At that
demand meets the requirement of the statute. What time, the dog appeared at the porch doorway. The
problems do you foresee in resolving this case in bottom panel of the porch door was either broken
court? How could future landlords avoid disputes or missing. While the plaintiff was at the doorway.
such as this one? (Merida v Morosoff. 2016 NY the dog ran through the opening and bit the plain-
Slip Op 50513(U), decided on April 11, 2016, Dis- tiff on her leg. The plaintiff sought to recover dam-
trict Court of Nassau County.1
ages from the defendant as “keeper” of the dog.
1166
Part 10 Property
tional security deposit. Mr. Baird stated that fail- cise the option to extend the lease by letter sent to
ure to appear at his office the following day would L.C. Smull by regular mail. On June 13, 2002, the
result in his turning off the water and electricity. landlord wrote back, stating that Gans’s request was
Ms. Gregoire corroborated Mr. Traynor’s descrip- “untimely.” Smull also wrote: “Please be advised that
tion of what Mr. Baird had told them that morning. the Landlord has elected to cancel your lease at the
She characterized Mr. Baird’s statement as a threat. expiration on July 31, 2002. at which time you are
Ms. Gregoire and Mr. Traynor testified that they to vacate the premises.” Gans claimed that he waited
had paid the September and October 2012 rent and until Monday to send the request as, according to the
the security deposit to Due North, but that, due to Code of Civil Conduct, if the last day to perform an
the conflicting letters received in September 2012. act provided or required by law within a specified
and upon advice of counsel, they did not pay the period of time is a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday, then
November 2012 rent either to Due North or Baird. that period is extended to the next day provided this
Do you think that the plaintiffs can be required to day is not a Saturday, Sunday, or holiday. Was Smull
pay rent to Baird? Does the new owner of the prop- right in evicting Gans? Why or why not? (Gants
erty have the right to threaten the plaintiffs if they Smull, 111 Cal. App. 4th 985 (Aug. 29, 2003).
do not sign a new lease? [Gregoire v. Baird Props, %. A plaintiff Virginia Auster, brought an action to
LLC, Rhode Island Supreme Court, 2016.
recover damages for personal injuries alleged to
6. A landlord filed a nonpayment proceeding to have been caused by the dog of an employee of the
recover possession of the 1st Floor at 49 Water
defendant. Norwalk United Methodist Church. Ms.
Lane North, Levittown, New York. The tenant Auster was a visitor who was on the premises to
allegedly owed the petitioner the sum of $9.970,00. attend a meeting in the parish house. The plaintiff
The tenant claimed that the petitioner failed to was early for the meeting, and when she arrived,
demand payment of rent or serve a requisite three the front door of the parish house was locked. The
days’ notice in writing requiring in the alternative. plaintiff walked around to the side of the parish
the payment of the rent, or the possession of the house to find someone to unlock the door. She went
premises as required under RPAPL & 711(2), The to the side stairway that led up to Salinas’ living
landlord claimed that he had demanded the rent quarters. There was a landing on the top of the
personally from the tenant since it became due. The stairway that led to an indoor porch that connected
tenant further claimed that he had not been served. to Salinas’ kitchen. When the plaintiff reached the
personally, with any notice or demand. The land- top of the stairway, she raised her voice to see if
lord claims that under New York law an oral anyone was home at Salinas’ residence. At that
demand meets the requirement of the statute. What time, the dog appeared at the porch doorway. The
problems do you foresee in resolving this case in bottom panel of the porch door was either broken
court? How could future landlords avoid disputes or missing. While the plaintiff was at the doorway.
such as this one? (Merida v Morosoff. 2016 NY the dog ran through the opening and bit the plain-
Slip Op 50513(U), decided on April 11, 2016. Dis tiff on her leg. The plaintiff sought to recover dam
trict Court of Nassau County
ages from the defendant as “keeper” of the dog.
1166
Part 10 Property
What would you expect the factual issues to be in
this case? What ethical issues would the defendant
face in resisting compensation for the dog bite?
Auster. Norwalk United Methodist Church, 894
A.2d 329 (Conn.App., 2006)]
9. In late 2011, Richard Bolmer filed a lawsuit against
Connolly Properties, Inc., claiming that its rental
property, in which he resided, was poorly main-
tained. He claimed that the property was left victim
to mold, rodents, bugs, unclean common areas, and
unreported theft and criminal activity. This state of
disrepair was caused by the managers of the prop-
erty, who allowed illegal immigrants to live in the
complex. What more could Bolmer have done to
ensure his safety at the rental property? (Del Rio-
Mocci . Connolly Properties, Inc., 672 F34 241
(3d Cir. 2012).
10. Escobar, a college student, sustained injuries when
he fell from a fourth-story window of the Mark
Tower residence hall at the University of South-
ern California (USC). Before he fell, he had been
sleeping on a bed that was placed against a win-
dow in Mark Tower. Escobar’s friends had taken
him to this residence hall so that he could sleep off
the effects of excessive alcohol consumption. Esco-
bar sued USC, alleging that the residence hall was
dangerous and that USC had a duty to make the
facility safe. USC sought to have the lawsuit dis-
missed because the fall was caused by Escobar’s
gross consumption of alcohol. Escobar contested
USC’s claim, alleging that his fall was caused by
a dangerous condition in the residence hall. Spe-
cifically, when the university redesigned rooms in
1996. it created a dangerous condition by removing
permanently affixed desks, which had prevented
beds from being placed against the window. The
university should have considered what its redesign
would do to furniture arrangement and how new
arrangements might place students at risk. Will
Escobar get to go forward with his claim? [Escobar
*: University of Southern California, No B166522
Los Angeles Sup. Cl. No. BC259972, available at
2004 WL 2094602.)
Looking for more review materials?
“Assignment on the Internet.” “On the Internet.” quizzes, and other helpful material can be found on
Connect
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
