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.
5. Which of the following is the most appropriate comment concerning this lawsuit?
Assume that no problems with subsidence or other misadventures occurred during construction of the defendant's new building. However, when it was completed, the plaintiff discovered that the shadow created by the new higher building placed her building in such deep shade that the ability to lease space was diminished, and the rent she could charge and the occupancy rate were substantially lower. Assume that these facts are proved in an appropriate action the plaintiff instituted against the defendant for all and any relief available.
There is no applicable statute or ordinance (other than those dealing with various approvals for zoning, building, etc.).
A plaintiff and a defendant own adjoining lots in the central portion of a city. Each of their lots had an office building. The defendant decided to raze the existing building on her lot and erect a building of greater height. The defendant had received all governmental approvals required to pursue her project.
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 plaintiff has no right to an injunction because there is nothing guaranteeing the plaintiff rights to the sunlight, fresh air, or view.
B is incorrect. A non-specific performance remedy is also inappropriate here. Again, the plaintiff has no right to the sunlight, fresh air, or view.
C is incorrect. Damages are inappropriate here because the plaintiff has no rights to the sky.