Contract with Friendly Dawg Analysis Essay (Essay Sample)

Contract/Tort Law
Student’s Name
University
Course
Professor
Date
Contract/Tort Law
Contract Law
Contract with Friendly Dawg
Dave is the sole inheritor of the Friendly Dawg. Therefore, he is in a binding contract lease agreement signed between landlord Lou and his father. In line with the doctrine of a separate legal entity, the lease between friendly Dawg and Lou subsists even after the death of the father. Therefore, Dave is entitled to the rights accruing from the force of the contractual agreement and from the operation of common law. These include quiet enjoyment, right to habitable and safe premises, exclusive possession, repairs, security of deposit, and protection against eviction. The fact of the presence of a written agreement indicate the two are bound by express terms in line with the requirement of the law in most jurisdictions that recommend formal written agreements in particular contracts such the ones where transfer of interests in land are involved.
However, the contract in express terms for the sale of pets and does not cover the current expansion of inventory to include live animals. Despite the apparent Lou’s acknowledgment of the expansion, it constitutes a modification of the contractual agreement between the two. The current position case law position is that any contractual modification must attract different considerations for it to be enforceable. This decision was affirmed in the case of Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd [1989]. The high amount of rent paid before Dave became the new tenant, was a consideration under the old contract. However, based on the conduct of the parties, an implied contract had come into being. Without express terms as held in the Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company [1892], a contract can be formed between the parties. Through conduct, Lou had consented to the new agreement under the initial terms only this with an expanded inventory for a contrary that was voidable at his call. Consent is certainly one of the most important requirements and a fundamental contract in the contract. Furthermore, based on their conduct, it is inevitably true that both parties intended to establish legal relations. Clearly, the consent by Lou was not a call for upgrading the property to match the conditions required by live animals and more particularly in absence of fresh consideration. The prevailing refusal to pay rent constitutes a material and fundamental breach of the contract. In case of Glolite Ltd. v Jasper Conran Ltd (1998), material breach renders a contract voidable by the aggrieved party. Based on this analysis, Dave is clearly in breach of his contractual obligations of paying rent. In the circumstances, Lou has a number of remedies that include repossession, forfeiture of lease for nonpayment of rent, commercial rent arrears recovery, and forfeiture of deposit.
Without fresh consideration, Dave was primarily obligated to make a proper assessment to determine the fitness of the structure for his live animals. At this point, a distinction between structural improvements and repairs is vital. Lou's contractual obligations only include repairing, not improvements. Repairs are designed to make premises habitable. The ventilation and heating in question were substantially the same at the point of signing the contract. Adaptation changes for business efficacy are primarily the duty of the tenant as held in the case of HYPERLINK "https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/8/812.html" Brown v. Green (1994)
Contract with Sunshine Yoga
A lease contract can be in writing, or verbal. Based on the party's conduct, in which one receives rent and the other continually pays the rent, a valid implied contract had come to bear in line with the reasoning in Hendrickson v. Meredith (1933). This is to say that Dave as a tenant is entitled to a plethora of basic tenant rights that include but are not limited to rights such as the right to quiet possession, eviction, repairs, safe and habitable environment, exclusive possession during the period of the subsistence of the lease. The contract between Jasmine and Lou has all the necessary requirements. The parties through their conduct exhibit a mutual understanding intended to create legal relations between the two. In the decision of Lucy v. Zehmer, 196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 (1954) , the courts have argued that it suffices that there is mutual assent and ascertainable consideration to conclude that a contract had come to bear between two parties.
Clearly, based on the current developments, the premises had become uninhabitable, unsafe, and unable to confer quiet enjoyment. Together, these developments constitute a material breach between Jasmine and Lou. The fact of smaller rent and strained payments is not a material breach. In the circumstances, Jasmine can make a number of claims that include but are not limited to, damages for personal injuries, and loss of customers, lease termination, rescission. However, for the apparent refusal to pay rent, Jasmine can rely on the ground of constructive eviction as a justification. Constructive dismissal occurs when the property owners’ act constitutes a breach material for the contract to be considered to be subsisting. With or without exculpatory agreement, Lou cannot disclaim the liability for personal injuries sustained by tenants for landlord’s omissions and actions on the premises.
Tort Law
Tort law is the body of law that covers series of remedies for civil wrongs. In tort law, a person is responsible for wrongful acts, intentional or purely intentional if they occasion some injuries. Torts law regulates negligence, malpractices, and ot