Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
34. If the court finds for the landlord, what will be the most likely explanation?
The tenant then sued the landlord, claiming damages for that portion of the lease period during which the tenant was not in possession.
When the tenant arrived at the leased premises on July 1, the tenant learned that the previous tenant had not vacated the premises at the end of her lease term on May 31 and did not intend to vacate. The tenant then successfully sued the previous tenant for possession. The tenant did not inform the landlord of the eviction action until after the tenant received possession.
A landlord and a tenant orally agreed to a commercial tenancy for a term of six months beginning on July 1. Rent was to be paid by the first day of each month, and the tenant paid the first month's rent at the time of the agreement.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under the «American view,» the landlord only has the duty to deliver legal possession, not actual possession, of the premises. Under the «English rule,» the landlord does have the duty to deliver actual possession to the tenant at the start of the lease term. The English rule gives the lessee the right to terminate the lease and recover damages for the breach for the landlord failing to deliver possession.
B is correct. The landlord granted the legal right of possession to the tenant, which means that neither the landlord nor anyone holding of the landlord prevented the tenant from going into possession at the commencement of the lease term. The previous tenant's lease term had ended before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. As stated in the question, the court found for the landlord, and thus there is no rule in this jurisdiction that the landlord need also put the tenant into actual possession.
A is incorrect. The tenant did not waive any claim against the landlord by first suing the previous tenant. In the absence of a statute requiring delivery of actual possession of the premises, a landlord need deliver only legal possession to the tenant on the first day of the lease term. The previous tenant's lease term had ended automatically before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. Legal possession was delivered to the tenant because neither the landlord nor one holding of the landlord was in possession at the commencement of the tenant's lease.
C is incorrect. The tenant has not been constructively evicted. The previous tenant's lease term had ended automatically before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. The landlord prevailed, and thus this jurisdiction follows the view that a landlord has a duty to deliver only legal possession to the tenant at the commencement of the lease and need not also deliver actual possession. Legal possession was delivered to the tenant because neither the landlord nor one holding of the landlord was in possession at the commencement of the tenant's lease term.
D is incorrect. The landlord delivered legal possession to the tenant, which means that neither the landlord nor one holding of the landlord was in possession at the commencement of the tenant's lease term. The previous tenant's lease term had ended automatically before the new lease term began. The previous tenant then became a trespasser and was not holding of the landlord. The landlord prevailed, and thus this jurisdiction follows the rule that the landlord need not deliver actual possession to a new tenant. The tenant did not need to notify the landlord of the eviction suit because it was the tenant's responsibility to evict the previous tenant.