Lawts - Free Case Briefs
Excerpts from Recent Articles:
Kemble v. Farren:
A liquidated damages clause is not valid if it is a penalty clause. The stipulation that the clause is not a penalty clause cannot be sustained by the facts. Under the contract and from the very instance of its creation, if Kemble had neglected to make a singe daily payment, or if Farren had refused to conform to any usual regulation of the theater, however minute or unimportant, the contract called for the imposition of a 1,000 pound payment. [...]
Eckles v. Sharman:
The materiality of a contract term is a question of fact. A question of fact cannot be subject to a directed verdict. The jury could have found that Sharman would not have intended to be bound if the pension and option provisions were not agreed upon. The jury should have determined whether the parties intended the contract to be enforceable in the absence of agreements on these unresolved provisions. [...]
Wade v. Jobe:
There is a common law implied warranty of habitability in residential leases. These premises were not in habitable condition; the presence of raw sewage on the sidewalks and stagnant water in the basement and the resulting foul odor is a breach of habitability. Habitability requires that the landlord maintain bare living requirements and that the premises are fit for human occupation. [...]
Ellish v. Airport Parking Company of America, Inc.:
Retention of custody is an essential element of a bailment. Ellish retained control over her car because she locked it and kept the keys. The transaction was of a temporary nature in that the defendant provided a service in allowing Ellish to occupy space in its lot for a period of time. [...]
South Staffordshire Water Co. v. Sharman:
Where a person has possession of real estate, with a manifest intention to exercise control over it and the things which may be on it or in it, then if something is found on that land, the presumption is that the owner of the land on which it was found has possession. The general rule is that the possession of land entails the possession of all things attached to and underneath the land, as well as the landowner’s power to exclude others from the land. In this case the owner of the pool in which the rings were found had legal possession of them and has superior claim to title. [...]
Cheney Brothers v. Doris Silk Corp.:
Unless recognized under common law or by some statute, a person’s property is limited to the chattels which embody his invention. Imitation cannot be prevented because that would create a monopoly. There can be no common law patent protection because it would be impossible to determine the scope of that protection. The Supreme Court did not create such protection in the International News Service case and that ruling is limited to its facts. [...]
Davidow v. Inwood North Professional Group – Phase I:
There is an implied warranty of habitability and fitness for use in a commercial lease. There is no valid reason to imply a warranty of habitability in residential leases and not in commercial leases. There are minor differences in these types of leases but that does not mean or demand that we apply different standards under modern law to each type of lease. [...]
Newman v. Bost:
A gift causa mortis requires an intention to make a gift, and a delivery of the thing given. A constructive delivery can satisfy the requirement for a gift causa mortis. A symbolic delivery is not sufficient to make a gift valid. A gift causa mortis also requires but one witness and no publicity is to be given that the gift has been made and no probate or registration is required. [...]
Peet v. Roth Hotel Co.:
Before the mutual assent of bailment can occur, the receiver need not be made aware of the unusual value of the item in question. Mutual assent to a contract may be expressed by conduct, words, or both. The expression of mutual assent is found in what transpired between the parties in this case. Peet delivered and the hotel accepted the ring to be delivered to Mr. Hotz. [...]
Asper v. Haffley:
A landlord is subject to the duty of reasonable care upon proof of a breach of implied warranty of habitability. A landlord is under a duty of reasonable care to repair dangerous conditions upon his property. Under the implied warranty of habitability there exists a duty and a breach of that duty is actionable under negligence. [...]