Syllabus Vs Chesneys Case Study

671 Words3 Pages
The Definiteness Requirement Prevails (Essay Question 1 Page 160) Sarah Brown Bethel University John Stevens’ dilapidated apartment got a fresh, new remodeling job done at the expense of the Chesneys, and now, after being evicted, the Chesneys are seeking the value of the work they had done. We are going to take a look at this from a few different angles, and then I will inform whether or not the Chesneys are entitled. The defendant never promised to keep the tenants under his lease for life, or for any other certain amount of time (other than what the lease states, which is not the issue here). But, with that being said, are there unusual reasons to hold the landlord liable anyway? This is tricky question and there is a clear ethical issue here. This hypothetical…show more content…
Well, the plaintiff did give some benefit to the defendant. Mr. Stevens’ apartment was dilapidated, meaning it was in a state of ruin as a result of age or neglect. It was falling to pieces. Now since the Chesneys have remodeled it from top to bottom, at their own cost, the defendant is clearly benefitting from it. Secondly, the defendant would be unjustly enriched if he did not pay the Chesneys for their work. The rent that Mr. Stevens will be able to charge will be significantly higher than what he was charging before. So, he would be enriched by making much more income by renting this newly refurbished apartment to a new tenant, rather than to keep charging the Chesneys whatever it was that he was charging them, which is probably a good reason for him to evict the Chesneys. However, that is frankly speculation. The third term for a quasi-contract to be in effect is that the plaintiff reasonably expected to be paid for the benefit, with the defendant knowing this. This last element must also be present for the court to award quantum meruit to the Chesneys. Where to draw line, though? How do we know that a

More about Syllabus Vs Chesneys Case Study

Open Document