THE CASE OF THE MEETING OF THE MINDS Plaintiff Jagger signed a five-year commerc
ID: 335286 • Letter: T
Question
THE CASE OF THE MEETING OF THE MINDS Plaintiff Jagger signed a five-year commercial lease in July 2001 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". Jagger vacated the premises in April 2003 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 Starbucks, Applebee's, and Dos Coyotes would be leasing and occupying sites near his and that they would commence operations by the end of 2001. Starbucks and Applebee's never ot until December 2002. 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 1. What do you think was the single biggest mistake made by Jagger? 2. 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. 3. Could Jagger or Defendant have done anything to have avoided the problem, if there was one?Explanation / Answer
1. Jagger made a mistake of entering into the lease contract with an assumption that space will be shared by Starbucks and Applebee's, that was based on possibility of an event of future, while the lease document stated otherwise.
2. The defendant did not commit misrepresentation because his opinion was based on the possibility of a future event beyond anyone's control. The lease conditions stated otherwise, and Jagger should have insisted on incorporating the clause at the time of contracting the lease, if he thought so, to avoid any misrepresentation. As he did not, he can't hold the defendant guilty.
3. Jagger should have objected to the language of the contract, which was against his assumptions of the facts at the time of formation of contract. Thus, he could have avoided the trouble.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.