Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
Size of Premises
Where the facts show that the size of the premises was misrepresented, a tenant may have a right to a trial and an accounting and declaratory relief. McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC, B194037, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Jan. 31, 2008.
The tenant commenced an action for misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, consumer credit reporting violations, and accounting and declaratory relief. The landlord filed a demurrer; the court sustained it with leave to amend on the claims of misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief, but held a bench trial on the remaining claims of consumer credit reporting violations and an accounting. The tenant alleged that the landlord had misrepresented the size of the premises and charged her an excessive percentage of common expenses. The landlord argued that the lease agreement contained a disclaimer stating that the tenant had been given an opportunity to inspect the premises. The court held that the landlord was entitled to obtain the tenant's credit report, and the tenant had no right to an accounting. The appellate court reversed with regard to the tenant's claims for misrepresentation, an accounting and declaratory relief. It held that the disclaimer did not insulate the landlord from liability and did not establish that the tenant's reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was unjustifiable. The tenant was further entitled to an accounting limited to the disclosure of the documents supporting the tenant's share of the common expenses to verify that the listed expenses were incurred and that the amounts charged to the tenant were accurate. It further held that the landlord was entitled to choose the method of presentation of these documents to the tenant. Finally, because the complaint adequately alleged fraud based upon misrepresentations regarding the tenant's proper base rent and share of common expenses, the tenant was entitled to a claim for declaratory relief.
Size of Premises
Where the facts show that the size of the premises was misrepresented, a tenant may have a right to a trial and an accounting and declaratory relief. McClain v. Octagon Plaza, LLC, B194037, Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Four, Jan. 31, 2008.
The tenant commenced an action for misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, consumer credit reporting violations, and accounting and declaratory relief. The landlord filed a demurrer; the court sustained it with leave to amend on the claims of misrepresentation, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and declaratory relief, but held a bench trial on the remaining claims of consumer credit reporting violations and an accounting. The tenant alleged that the landlord had misrepresented the size of the premises and charged her an excessive percentage of common expenses. The landlord argued that the lease agreement contained a disclaimer stating that the tenant had been given an opportunity to inspect the premises. The court held that the landlord was entitled to obtain the tenant's credit report, and the tenant had no right to an accounting. The appellate court reversed with regard to the tenant's claims for misrepresentation, an accounting and declaratory relief. It held that the disclaimer did not insulate the landlord from liability and did not establish that the tenant's reliance on the alleged misrepresentation was unjustifiable. The tenant was further entitled to an accounting limited to the disclosure of the documents supporting the tenant's share of the common expenses to verify that the listed expenses were incurred and that the amounts charged to the tenant were accurate. It further held that the landlord was entitled to choose the method of presentation of these documents to the tenant. Finally, because the complaint adequately alleged fraud based upon misrepresentations regarding the tenant's proper base rent and share of common expenses, the tenant was entitled to a claim for declaratory relief.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at customercare@alm.com or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
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.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
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.
The Article 8 Opt In
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
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?