Contractual Obligations and Eviction Grounds in a Lease Dispute

Scenario Summary

A pet supply store owner expanded operations to sell live animals despite a lease restricting the business to supplies. Noise from dogs and parrots disrupted a neighboring yoga studio, and a snake escaped into the studio, causing the tenant a heart attack. The store owner withheld rent over air-conditioning disputes, while the yoga tenant stopped paying rent, citing unsafe conditions and loss of clients. The landlord is caught between a higher-paying but noncompliant tenant and a lower-paying tenant without a written lease who frequently complains.

Elements of Valid Contract Between The Friendly Dawg and Landlord Lou

Valid elements should be considered to identify which elements exist in the scenario and determine whether a valid contract exists between Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou. The consideration, offer, and legal capacity characterize a valid contract. Consideration is a process of exchanging something valuable between people or parties. In this case scenario, consideration is present since Friendly Dawg makes a monthly rent payment of $500.

Another element is legal capacity, which involves entering into a contract and having legal ability. From the case scenario, there was legal capacity to make an arrangement between landlord Lou and The Friendly Dawg. The last element is an offer, which involves persuading one party to enter into a contract; an offer is given as an incentive. When the store was renovated, landlord Lou visited and was impressed with how the expansion was made (Knapp et al., 2023). This could mean he had guaranteed the offer of renovation or making changes.

The Friendly Dawg

The analysis should be done to determine the potential rights, claims, defenses, obligations, and remedies available to both landlord Lou and The Friendly Dawg in this scenario. The potential rights of The Friendly Dawg include rights whereby Landlord Lou has given The Friendly Dawg rights to use the premises for business operations (Benbaji, 2019). Another element is defenses, which involve expanding the premises, which was justified by landlord Lou in case of any compromise of lease terms. The third element is obligations, whereby Landlord Lou obligates The Friendly Dawg to pay rent while complying with lease terms and minimizing noise pollution.

The last element is the claim, which involves the initial approval of the expansion, showing that The Friendly Dawg claimed to sell live animals (Benbaji, 2019). The potential remedies for The Friendly Dawg include reverting to operating the inventory as a pet store and stopping violating the lease agreement (Shiffrin, 2021). Reverting to initial operations could minimize conflict between landlord Lou and The Friendly Dawg

Landlord Lou

The first potential element is the claim; according to landlord Lou, The Friendly Dawg expanded the inventory and included live animals without direct authority. This shows that The Friendly Dawg breached the lease terms. Another potential obligation supposes that landlord Lou ensures all properties are repaired. The second potential element is defenses; according to landlord Lou, the inventory was only used as a pet supply store.

The third potential element is rights, whereby Landlord Lou can enjoy his rights, such as collecting rent at the right time. To evict either party, the agreement terms must be violated. The remedies for Landlord Lou include expelling The Friendly Dawg for not respecting the lease terms (Benbaji, 2019). Another remedy is that landlord Lou has every right to claim potential damages. This will force The Friendly Dawg to repay for damages caused.

There is a difference between ethical matters related to a business setting and legal matters. Law matters are characterized by rights, obligations, and legal requirements imposed by the legal system. In contrast, matters related to business ethics can be described as moral standards and principles that guide ethical behavior and decision-making in business settings (Summers, 2020). For instance, landlord Lou’s role is to ensure safety and minimize the impact of noise pollution on the Yoga Sunshine business, and The Friendly Dawg is expanding the inventory without authorization (Pattison, 2020). There is the dilemma of transparency, responsibility, honesty, and fairness between the parties involved.

Elements of Valid Contract Between Sunshine Yoga and Landlord Lou

To analyze the validity of the contract between landlord Lou and Sunshine Yoga. The following are elements of the contact in the case scenario. This includes acceptance, legal capacity, mutual consent, consideration, and offer (Benbaji, 2019). One element of a valid contract is legal capacity, whereby both parties are presumed to have the legal ability to work together.

The second element is acceptance, whereby Jasmine accepts the offer given by landlord Lou (Ulen, 2021). However, the case does not indicate a lease agreement that causes a dilemma of acceptance. The next element of a valid contract is a consideration, whereby Sunshine Yoga pays a monthly rent of $300, described as consideration given to the space offered. Another component of a valid contract is an offer, whereby, in the case study, Sunshine Yoga provides a $300 monthly rent that was agreed upon (Knapp et al., 2023).

The last element of a valid contract is mutual consent, whereby Landlord Lou offers the space forever. This could indicate mutual consent that is not written and leads to uncertainty. The elements indicate a valid contract between landlord Lou and Sunshine Yoga (Knapp et al., 2023). However, the agreement is not written, which may indicate there is uncertainty that might affect the feasibility of the lease terms

Landlord Lou

The elements available for Sunshine Yoga and landlord Lou include defenses, claims, rights, and obligations. Based on the case scenario, the potential defense for Landlord Lou is that there is no written agreement showing lease terms, which makes Sunshine Yoga argue that the agreement made verbally lacks enforceability. From the perspective of landlord Lou, the potential claim is that Sunshine Yoga must pay monthly rent and he has every right to collect rent from Sunshine Yoga.

As stated by Sunshine Yoga, the potential obligation is that landlord Lou must supply her with premises. According to landlord Lou, a potential remedy may include evicting Sunshine Yoga if she fails to honor the former agreement. Another remedy is demanding payment for outstanding rental bills (Summers, 2020). This enables both parties to work confidently to ensure that both parties are satisfied.

Sunshine Yoga

From the point of view of landlord Lou, Sunshine Yoga’s potential defense is that It violated the agreement terms by failing to pay rent on time. As for Sunshine Yoga, their potential claim stated that the agreement terms were non-eviction and long-term, as promised by landlord Lou. Based on the verbal agreement, Sunshine Yoga’s potential right to occupy and use the premises as a studio is guaranteed.

According to Sunshine Yoga, the potential obligation is to pay a monthly rent of $300 and respect landlord Lou’s set terms (Knapp et al., 2023). A potential remedy for Sunshine Yoga is amending lease terms to minimize eviction (Shiffrin, 2021). This could minimize the argument that leads to the enforced eviction of Sunshine Yoga

Grounds to Evict

Landlord Lou can evict The Friendly Dawg for failing to honor the lease agreement. The Friendly Dawg added live animals to the inventory without amending the lease terms or informing landlord Lou, which caused them to disturb other tenants by making unnecessary noise (Ulen, 2021). Landlord Lou has no grounds to evict Sunshine Yoga because there is no breach of the lease agreement that could justify eviction. Landlord Lou can evict The Friendly Dawg and Sunshine Yoga because they violate the common law or fail to honor rent payments. For landlord Lou, it is never promised that eviction can only happen by recording lease terms, which is usually codified by statute.

The recorded lease consisted of a term that described the type of use the father of Dave was guaranteed. Landlord Lou can evict both tenants since they have no fixed lease agreement (Ulen, 2021). In the case study, Dave may have violated the habitability and quiet enjoyment covenant for Jasmine, which could have made Lou terminate the tenancy. Rent withdrawal can create eviction grounds, and in some states in the U.S., if habitability is violated, then withdrawal of rent is allowed (Ulen, 2021). This helps to reduce harm to tenants and ensures the landlord prevents violations.

References

Benbaji, Y. (2019). Contract Law in a Just Society. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 20(2), 411–432. Web.

Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., Prince, H. G., Hart, D. K., & Silverstein, J. M. (2023). Problems in Contract Law: Cases and Materials. Aspen Publishing.

Nadler, J. (2021). Freedom from Things: A Defense of the Disjunctive Obligation in Contract Law. Legal Theory, 27(3), 177–206. Web.

Pattison, H. (2020). Our Days Are Like Full Years: A Memoir with Letters from Louis Kahn. Yale University Press.

Shiffrin, S. V. (2021). Democratic law. Oxford University Press.

Summers, N. (2020). The limits of good law. The University of Chicago Law Review, 87(1), 145–222. Web.

Ulen, T. S. (2021). Behavioral contract law. Review of Law & Economics, 17(2), 281–322. From the journal. Web.