Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D leased most of a floor in a building owned by P. D subleased office space in the building and provided support services. D fell behind on her rental payments during the mid-1980s and, in 1987, renegotiated her lease. D claimed that P's express and implied representations along with its long-standing course of conduct led her to believe that her rent was not considered late if it was paid within the month it was due. D was current in her lease payments as of March 1989. In April 1989, D began collecting rent from her subtenants as usual. On April 14, 1989, P served D with notice that her lease was terminated for failure to timely pay the April rent and ordered her to vacate the premises within three days. D was evicted within thirty days, and her business collapsed. P sued D for breach of the lease, monies owing and attorney's fees. The court granted a partial summary judgment in favor of P. At trial, the court concluded as a matter of law that the statute of frauds and certain clauses in the lease agreement precluded D from asserting modification, waiver or estoppel. The clauses were an Integration clause, a Non-Waiver clause, and an Entire Agreement and Binding Effect clause. The court rendered judgment against D and D appealed. D claims that P accepted her rental payments during the month in which each was due for a number of years, that it was aware that her manner of payment resulted from the nature of her business, and that its agents expressly approved of her manner of payment. P maintains that D's decision to declare the lease in default had more to do with its desire to release her space to another tenant than with any action of hers.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co