Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractplaintiffdefendantdamagesliabilityleaserescission
contractplaintiffdefendantverdictleaserescission

Related Cases

Case v. Minot, 158 Mass. 577, 33 N.E. 700, 22 L.R.A. 536
View Case »
Somers v. Kane, 168 Minn. 420, 210 N.W. 287
View Case »
Wilomay Holding Co. v. Peninsula Land Co., 36 N.J.Super. 440, 116 A.2d 484
View Case »
Blunier v. Staggs, 250 Or.App. 215, 279 P.3d 826
View Case »
General Motors Corp. v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2005 WL 8175039
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Becar v. Flues, 19 Sickels 518, 64 N.Y. 518, 1876 WL 363

Facts

The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for unpaid rent under a verbal lease agreement for a property in Brooklyn. The defendant's testator had been in possession of the premises under a written lease that expired on May 1, 1874. In early 1874, a verbal agreement was made for another year, but the testator died shortly thereafter. The defendant notified the plaintiff of the rescission of the lease and vacated the premises on May 1, 1874, tendering the key, which the plaintiff declined to accept. The plaintiff sought three-quarters of the rent due under the contract.

The defendant proved that the plaintiff might have rented the house for nearly as much as the defendant's testator was to pay for the same.

Issue

Whether the parol lease was an executory contract and if the plaintiff could only recover actual damages after the defendant's refusal to perform.

It is claimed by the defendant that between the making of the contract and the time for taking possession the contract was executory.

Rule

A parol lease for a year, to commence in futuro, is valid and creates a present interest in the term, making it binding and not merely executory.

This court decided, in Young v. Dake (5 N. Y., 463), that a parol lease for a year, to commence in futuro, is valid and obligatory.

Analysis

The court determined that the lease was not executory, as it vested a present interest in the term. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff could only recover actual damages was rejected, as the court found that the lease was binding and the defendant remained responsible for the rent despite the attempted rescission. The court emphasized that both parties acted upon their strict legal rights, and the refusal to accept the rescission did not absolve the defendant of liability.

When the plaintiff refused to accept the rescission, the defendant still held the term, and was responsible for the rent of the house.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the defendant was liable for the rent due under the verbal lease agreement.

The judgment must be affirmed.

Who won?

Plaintiff; the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff because the parol lease was binding and the defendant was responsible for the rent despite the attempted rescission.

A verdict was directed for the plaintiff.

You must be