Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
KEY MONEY
Under California law, a landlord has no liability for damages when he merely requests “key money” (an upfront bonus payment made by the tenant in order to secure the tenancy); he may be subject to a penalty where key money is requested and paid by the tenant, and where the landlord subsequently refuses to state the amount of the key money payment in the resulting lease. Edamerica Inc., et al., v. Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles; Kwan Jin Jung, Real Parties in Interest, B167449, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Eight, Dec. 23, 2003.
Yeng Pil Ji and Kyong Ji operated a Korean restaurant through their company Edamerica. Edamerica entered into a written commercial lease with the Jungs in 1995. From December 2001 through March 2002, the Jis sought to obtain a new lease or extend their existing lease with the Jungs. The Jungs informed the Jis that they would neither issue a new lease nor extend the existing lease unless the Jis paid the Jungs $1 million in “key money.” The Jis did not pay the Jungs any key money and lost an offer from a third party to purchase their business because they did not make the key money payment and, as a result, had no lease to assign to the third party. The Jis sued the Jungs, claiming that the Jungs' request for key money was a violation of Section 1950.8 of the California Civil Code. The Jis sought damages for their business losses and a civil penalty of $3 million.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?