April 14, 2021

     According to Kubasek et al. (2020), a valid contract’s elements are agreement, consideration, contractual capacity, and legal object.

      In the case between The Friendly Dawg and landlord Lou, Dave’s deceased father and landlord Lou signed the lease, stating that the business should only be a pet supply store. There is an agreement between the parties. There is the consideration, which is the exchange of value (Lumen Learning, n.d.). There is also a contractual capacity between the landlord and Dave’s deceased father, and the activity described in the contract is legal and does not go against the law (Lumen Learning, n.d.)

      The problem is that this contract has been signed by Dave’s deceased father and Lou and not between Dave and Lou. We assume that Dave is his deceased father’s heir to the business and the lease. He and Lou may have agreed to continue the lease, and it falls on his responsibility to review the lease his deceased father has entered, including where the contract stipulates that the business must only be a pet store supply.

      In this sense, Dave has breached his contract with Lou and the tenant’s use of premises. The tenant’s use of premises states that “a landlord and tenant may make an agreement to limit the uses of the premises…[and] the tenant must not use the premises in a way that creates a nuisance for surrounding tenants” (Kubasek et al., 2020). Dave has undoubtedly caused trouble for Jasmine by having live animals on his premises. Additionally, tenants cannot alter the premises without the landlord’s consent, and Lou cannot be faulted for not providing air conditioning and following animal safety and health codes required for live animals as he was not appropriately informed. Additionally, under the implied warranty of habitability, Lou must make sure his property is livable for ordinary residential purposes (Kubasek et al., 2020) and not for live animals.

      In this case, Lou and Dave may re-negotiate their leasing terms. According to his discretion, Lou may or may not allow Dave to have live animals in his pet shop. Dave must pay his rent, or Lou may sue, apply for a landlord’s lien, or evict him.

      In the case between The Sunshine Yoga (Jasmine) and landlord Lou, there is no written contract between the parties. An oral contract may be considered valid in some cases, assuming that there are factors such as witnesses and credibility of the parties (Nolo, n.d.). Otherwise, it may not be easy to prove the contract details. The statutes of frauds and the UCC may consider oral contracts valid only if writing is included (Statute of frauds, 2021).

      Additionally, the landlord-tenant relationship is “established by an oral or written contract [and] if the lease exceeds one year, it must be in writing” (Kubasek et al., 2020). Since Jasmine claims that Lou allows her to rent for more than one year, there should have been a written contract to prove this and not just claims.

      However, there is still an agreement between the parties. There is still an exchange of value. Contractual capacity is doubtful in this case because their contract was formed when they met at a bar, presumably drinking. However, in the previous case analysis of Lucy v. Zehmer, the court saw that the parties entered a valid contract despite being intoxicated and jesting. There has been reasonable meaning in both parties’ words and actions in both cases that may be understood as them lawfully entering a valid contract. In this sense, there is a contractual capacity between the parties. Lastly, the contract does not violate any legal subject matter.

      The landlord must follow the covenant of quiet enjoyment and allow the tenant to quietly enjoy the premises without his interference (Kubasek et al., 2020). Lou must create a peaceful environment for both Dave and Jasmine and should have been more proactive in solving his tenants’ disputes and problems. So far, Jasmine has not caused any significant breaches to their contract. Jasmine has followed the tenant’s use of the premises, has not caused the landlord any waste, has not made alterations without informing the landlord but has always been late paying her rent, although her rent is cheaper than Dave’s.

      In this case, Jasmine cannot be faulted for not paying her rent. Lou has failed to provide a peaceful environment for Jasmine. Jasmine can demand that Lou fix the situation with her neighbor. Additionally, she can leave Lou without paying him and sue Dave for not keeping his premises safe and not providing a safe containment for his live animals. It can be expected that Jasmine may sue Lou, but under the landlord’s liability, the landlord is generally “responsible for injuries that occur in common areas” (Kubasek et al., 2020) and not for premises occupied by other tenants. However, she can still sue Lou for not providing a peaceful, habitable residence and, under tort law, can sue Dave for strict liability and for causing her emotional distress and losing clients.

      With all the details established and explained, Lou has the grounds to evict The Friendly Dawg. Dave, the owner, breached their contract terms and set up live animals despite only stating the business can only be a pet supply shop and has disturbed other tenants’ peace.

References

Kubasek, N. K., M Neil Browne, Dhooge, L. J., Herron, D. J., & Barkacs, L. L. (2020). Dynamic business law. Mcgraw-Hill Education. https://newconnect.mheducation.com/

Lumen Learning. (2019). Contracts | Introduction to Business. Lumenlearning.com. https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wmopen-introductiontobusiness/chapter/contracts/

Nolo. (2009, February 26). The Validity of Oral Contracts. Www.lawfirms.com; Nolo. https://www.lawfirms.com/resources/business/contracts/the-validity-oral-contracts.htm

Statute of frauds. (2021). LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/statute_of_frauds