THE CASE OF THE MEETING OF THE MINDS Plaintiff Tarth signed a five-year commerc
Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by our team of experts, At affordable rates
For This or a Similar Paper Click To Order Now
THE CASE OF THE MEETING OF THE MINDS
Plaintiff Tarth signed a five-year commercial lease in July 2019 with the Defendant, Oakshade Town Center, for space in a shopping center in Davis, CA. A provision of the lease stated: “Lessee does not rely on the fact nor does Lessor represent that any specific Lessee of type or number of Lessees shall, during the term of this lease, occupy any space in the Shopping Center”. Tarth vacated the premises in April 2021 and sued Defendant for rescission and damages.
The Trial
Plaintiff alleges that he entered into the lease in reliance on false statements made by the defendant and its agent; that Dunkin Donuts, Wendy’s, and Chipotle would be leasing and occupying sites near his and that they would commence operations by the end of 2019. Dunkin Donuts and Wendy’s never leased space. Chipotle became a tenant but not until December 2020.
Defendant admits that his agent discussed other tenants with the Plaintiff. Defendant disputes the misrepresentation, claiming they were not statements of fact, but statements of opinion about possible future conduct and alleges, in any event, the alleged misrepresentation was not material to the Plaintiff because of the provision in the lease (stated above).
Questions to Discuss
What do you think was the single biggest mistake made by Tarth?
Do you believe the Defendant committed misrepresentation (fraud) and why or why not? Be specific by using the facts and the definition of misrepresentation and any defenses for the defendant if needed.
Could Tarth or Defendant have done anything to have avoided the problem, if there was one?
Search entries or author
