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.
56. Which of the following best supports the owner's right to enter the house?
The tenant decided not to renew the lease, and at the beginning of the 90-day period, the owner told the tenant that she was going to show the house to a prospective lessee. The tenant refused to allow the owner to enter the house but said that the prospective lessee could enter.
The owner of a house leased it to a tenant for a one-year term. A provision in the lease stated that the owner had the right to place «For Rent» signs on the premises during the last 90 days of the lease term if the lease was not renewed. The lease also required the tenant to permit prospective lessees to enter and examine the premises during the 90-day period but did not address the owner's right to enter the premises for purposes of showing the house to prospective lessees.
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
A is incorrect. The principle of reasonable expectations applies to insurance law. It posits that parties should not be bound by terms that they would not expect to find in a contract unless those terms were called to their attention and that ambiguities are to be resolved in favor of the insured. That doctrine is not relevant here.
C is incorrect. «Best efforts» is a duty read into a contract to prevent it from being illusory when the scope of a party's performance is omitted or unclear. The duty of best efforts, which requires all parties to use their best efforts to carry out the intent of the contract, is not relevant here as related to the owner's right to enter the house.
D is incorrect. Under the objective theory of contracts, a party to a contract is bound by a contract term even if that party is not subjectively aware of the term. That theory is not relevant here since the owner's right to enter the house was not an explicit contract term.