The Facts of Laxmi Renting

In order to provide advice to Laxmi, we must first consider two important aspects of the fact. The first important aspect is the period from 2008 to 2013. This is a 6 year lease with a 10 year total lease term. The main concern of customers in this case is that individuals are responsible for acquiring rent, guaranteeing property, and damages for owners' damages. pay. As the incident occurred, we must see which related cases and regulations can be used to provide Laxmi with the best advice.

Fact: The landlord of the plaintiff and the defendant are leasing. During wartime, the defendant could not pay the full amount. The rent is halved. At the end of the war, the plaintiff sued some of the retroactive rent and returned to the original rent. According to the classical K law, that promise is impossible to enforce. The agreement to halve the rent is not taken into consideration. Pending: As long as an appointment is intended to take action and take action (dependence), promises can be enforced without consideration. The estoppel is suspended. Strictly, a new K was not created and the old K was not canceled. Plaintiffs informed defendants that lower rents would apply as long as certain conditions existed. When these conditions are over, the same applies to the commitment generated by the commitment. After that, the original K again determines the rights of the parties. Landlord does not default delinquency - difference between future commitment and past dependency

Fact: Landlord and tenant jointly misunderstood the allowable rent price (too high). Tenants claim that they should reduce their rent. The landlord tried to invalidate the lease in case of mutual error. Pending: You can cancel K and the lessee can choose to pay the full amount. Ratio: unless it is suspended unless such a situation occurs, either explicitly or implicitly or fraudulently or for some fair reasons. From the beginning you can not rely on your mistakes to say that it is invalid. ▪ Error to invalidate the contract (It can be held fairly to some extent without having to go through Bell b / c to read Bell, not fairness). 2) The fault of one party is caused by a material misstatement of the other party, even if it is not fraudulent or fundamental.