The Tenants Rights to Possession - Assignment Example

Special PART My own verdict: I am shocked by the judge’s ruling, since it is not known whether the landlord was telling the truth or not, and moreover, the jury should have also checked the facts whether the defendant was also playing fair or not, especially in the light of the fact that no other neighbours have complained. On his part, the landlord was in the right side of the law since he could not be held liable for occurrences inside the apartments. He had also made arrangements to inform the law based on the complaints of the defendant. It would be unreasonable to expect him to do anything beyond his capacity as receiver. It may be argued that the aspects of implied warranty of habitability is independent of the various clauses of the lease agreement, and moreover, the duties and obligations of the landlord in terms of habitability has not been categorically mentioned in tenancy agreement and consequences of any transgressions have not been placed in lease deed. Rationale: This could be seen in terms of implied clauses of habitability, although the landlord had provided for locks for door and bars for the windows, an infringement of habitability arouse because of domestic occurrences in the neighbouring apartment which disturbed the liveability in the said apartment. Q1: Yes, the landlord violates the arrantly of habitability since he did not come to the aid of the tenant during her anxious moments caused by heavy noises in the adjoining apartment. If a landlord violates the warranty of habitability, he may lose his rights under tenancy law as was laid down in the case of Mannie Joseph, Inc. v. Stewart, 71 Misc. 2d 160, 335 N.Y.S.2d 709 (1972) in which the absence of habitability was considered enough reason for forfeiture of rental rights. (Law Encyclopedia: Landlord and Tenant). Q2: No, the landlord is not violating the tenant’s rights to quiet possession, since he has not disturbed the possession of the apartment. Q3: The landlord has not taken all possible steps to ensure the safety of his tenants because he did not respond to the tenant’s numerous complaints and treated the matter as something personal between the tenant and the person’s occupying the adjoining apartment. Q4: The tenant’s response was reasonable and in good tenancy conduct since she was in grave physical danger and was afraid of her own safety and security in this environment. The Honourable Judge had ruled that tenancy would be treated as cancelled and the security deposit would be used for payment of January month Rentals. It is seen that according to the laws governing tenancy, the tenant needs to give at least one month’s notice to the owner before vacating premises; in this case this was not done since the tenant left abruptly. As per the terms of covenant, there is still a balance of 7 months due rent since the tenancy would expire only on 31 August. Therefore, it is necessary for the landlord to get a tenant forthwith, in order that no losses sustain to him due to unoccupied apartment left by the earlier tenant. Judge’s ruling: The writer feels that she is taken aback by the ruling of the judge. In the first place, it is not known whether the landlord is speaking the truth or not, they should have to bring proof about that and not just support this on the tenants words and no other tenants have complained about safety, and I also dont think that the landlord was doing a infringement of the law. I also think that the same accountability that the landlord has to the tenant in a residential situation would apply in a business situation as well, if the noisy neighbors makes it unfeasible for the tenant to run the store or business smoothly, an as a result the business is suffering damages, the landlord has a obligation to warn the noisy tenants. PART 2 My own verdict: My verdict is the same as that of the judge since the assistant had established implied authority before ordering the goods from Vasquez. Rationale: It is observed that Vasquez had shipped the goods on the belief that Freedman possessed the necessary authority to make needed amendments in the order. There was no reason why Vasques should not have believed Freedman’s words since he had dealt with such occasions in the past. Q1: Yes, I do think that Herran gave his assistant express authority to order goods in his absence because the latter had expressed authority to complete the order since he confirmed it and placed the order. Q2: Vasquez could fulfil the order as requested by the assistant but when it came to such a request which is a large change in order, Vasquez should have contacted Herran to get the amended order confirmed and approved by him. Q3: Apparent authority was established because, since Herran was on vacation, he had the permission to act as though he was in the position of Herran, the owner of the concern. Judge’s ruling: I totally agree with the judge’s ruling. This is because he had the implied authority to make necessary decisions when Herran was on vacation and also because, considering that Vasquez had done business in the past with Freedman, there was also apparent authority in place and no reason for Vasquez to disregard Freedman’s authority. Q4: Yes, there are other parties that could be held liable for the custom order than those considered in this case, viz. owner Herran. Vasquez could have held Freedman, the assistant who rebooked this particular order, and also the Company of which Herran was the owner, responsible for the losses in this order. Q5: The significance of a ‘special’ or a ‘custom’ order would be in terms of the workmanship that would have gone into making the product. A custom order is one that is a different kind of product made to the buyer’s unusual specifications. It is naturally more expensive than special order which is a big order with specifications within the limit the vendor could easily fill. In this case the special order was in relation to the extra number of sleeves that Freedman ordered to replenish his inventories. Q6: The extenuating circumstances would have been in case Herran had told Vasques to take orders and changes only from Herran and not from the assistant, Freedman. In such a situation, the verdict would have gone in favour of Herran, since, despite utterances to the contrary by the owner, Herran, he chose to listen to the assistant. This meant that he would have been going against the owner’s express instructions. In such a situation the verdict would have been in favour of Herran. But since nothing of the kind transpired, the Court was given to believe that Freedman had acted upon implied authority vested on him by the owner, Herran, and thereby he became liable to make full payment for the ordered goods. Works Cited Law Encyclopedia: Landlord and Tenant. Answers.com. 2008. 22 Jul. 2008. . Read More