1. Newman decided to rent his home at 32nd and Chestnut Streets. On January 2, 2010, he met with Kramer to discuss terms of a two year lease. Kramer noticed that there were no air conditioning units in the home. He told Newman that he would not rent the home unless Newman installed Commando air conditioners before April 1, 2010. Newman responded, “Don’t worry. I’ll have a Commando unit working in every room of my home some time in March.”
On January 2, 2010, Newman gave Kramer a document with explicit terms for rental of his home, with the terms to begin on February 1, 2010, and to end on January 31, 2012. These terms included the monthly rent of $1,000, and a listing of obligations of both landlord and tenant. Newman signed his name at the bottom of the paper, and dated it January 2, 2010.
He phoned Kramer and told him to look over the document, and if he agreed to it, please sign his (Kramer’s) name next to Newman’s, and to date it and give it back to him. There was no mention of air conditioners in the document. Kramer signed the document, and dated it January 5, 2010. Kramer gave Newman the signed document and kept a copy for himself.
Kramer moved into the home on February 1, 2010, and has paid his monthly rent on time. It is now June 16, 2010, and Newman refuses to install air conditioners in his house, even after repeated letters and phone calls from Kramer urging him to do so.
Kramer asserts that his lease is enforceable and Newman must install the Commando air conditioners. Discuss in detail Kramer’s rights to have the air conditioners by finding and discussing all legal issues.
If all you do is post your entire assignment, with no evidence of thinking on your part, nothing will happen since no one here will do your work for you.
But if you are specific about what you don't understand about the assignment or exactly what help you need, someone might be able to assist you. Ask specific questions!
To determine Kramer's rights regarding the installation of air conditioners, we need to analyze the legal issues and discuss them in detail. Here's a step-by-step breakdown:
1. Terms of the lease: The lease agreement signed by both Newman and Kramer on January 5, 2010, forms the basis of their agreement. The terms explicitly state the duration of the lease (February 1, 2010, to January 31, 2012) and the monthly rent ($1,000). According to the information provided, there was no mention of air conditioners in the lease.
2. Oral agreement: During their meeting on January 2, 2010, Kramer insisted on the installation of Commando air conditioners before April 1, 2010. Newman responded by assuring him that the units would be installed sometime in March. However, this agreement was not included or documented in the written lease.
3. Parol evidence rule: The parol evidence rule generally prevents the introduction of prior oral or written negotiations or agreements that contradict or modify the terms of a fully-integrated written contract. In this case, because the lease document is a complete written contract, any prior oral agreement regarding the air conditioners may not be enforceable unless there are exceptions to the rule.
4. Incorporation by reference: To determine whether the oral agreement regarding the air conditioners could be enforceable, we need to examine whether it was effectively incorporated by reference into the written lease. Since the lease document does not mention the air conditioners, it is unlikely that the oral agreement would be considered incorporated into the lease.
5. Partial integration: If the court determines that the lease is not a fully integrated written agreement, it may consider the parties' prior oral agreement. However, it is important to note that this depends on the court's interpretation and the evidence presented.
6. Promissory estoppel: If the court finds that Newman made a clear and unequivocal promise to install the air conditioners and Kramer detrimentally relied on that promise, Kramer may assert a promissory estoppel claim. Promissory estoppel allows a party to enforce a promise even in the absence of consideration. However, it will be crucial for Kramer to prove that he suffered harm or incurred expenses as a result of his reliance on Newman's promise.
7. Implied warranty of habitability: The implied warranty of habitability is a legal doctrine that requires landlords to maintain rental properties in a habitable condition. Whether the absence of air conditioners constitutes a breach of this warranty will depend on various factors, such as local housing codes, climate conditions, and the specific terms of the lease.
In summary, Kramer's rights to have the Commando air conditioners installed depend on whether the oral agreement was effectively incorporated into the written lease or if he can establish a promissory estoppel claim. Additionally, the implied warranty of habitability may play a role in determining Newman's obligations as a landlord. It is crucial to consider the specific jurisdiction's laws and consult with a legal professional for an accurate assessment of Kramer's rights in this situation.