Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recently, in Sea Island Food Grp., LLC v. Yaschik Dev. Co., Inc., a South Carolina appellate court affirmed a trial court's decision that: 1) a landlord had tortiously interfered with a sublease by terminating the master lease after a fire damaged the subject building; and 2) such landlord was liable to the subtenant for punitive damages. See, 433 S.C. 278, 857 S.E.2d 902 (Ct. App. 2021), reh'g denied (May 12, 2021).
In April 2013, a fire caused extensive damage to the building's second floor and roof, but less damage to other parts of the building. After such damage, the master tenant began repair and restoration work on the building. In May, 2013 the landlord entered into negotiations to sell the building to a neighboring property owner. Though the lease required the master tenant to carry $1 million in insurance, the master tenant advised the landlord in August, 2013 that the total cost of repairs could exceed $2.3 million. In September, the master tenant requested that the landlord approve the structural plans for the building's repair. The following week, the landlord notified the master tenant of its decision to terminate the lease. The lease provided for automatic termination in the event the premises were totally destroyed. The full lease provision reads as follows:
If premises are totally destroyed by fire or other casualty, this lease shall terminate as of the date of such destruction and rental shall be accounted for as between Landlord and Tenant as of that date. If premises are damaged but not wholly destroyed by fire or other casualty, rent shall abate in such proportion as use of premises has been lost to the Tenant. Landlord shall restore premises to substantially the same condition as prior to damage as speedily as practicable, whereupon full rental shall commence.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.