Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Leasing Hotline
PERSONAL GUARANTY
Where issues of fact exist surrounding a personal guaranty, the tenant will not be granted a motion to dismiss; a tenant is not absolved of liability merely because a landlord relets the premises if the landlord is not made whole by the reletting. Old 875 LLC & New 875 LLC v. Andrew Cantor, Civil Action No. 04-CV-4154, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Jan. 4, 2005.
The landlord and tenant entered into a lease for commercial space, and the tenant executed a personal guaranty for all obligations under the lease. Subsequently, the parties amended the lease, and the tenant agreed personally to guaranty the performance of all obligations under the amendment. The tenant defaulted on the lease and the amendment, and surrendered the premises. The landlord commenced a diversity action against the tenant, claiming that the tenant, as guarantor, was liable for all damages the landlord sustained as a result of the default. The tenant moved to dismiss, arguing that the guaranty applied only to the payment of rent before the surrender of the premises. It could not apply to the damages sought by the landlord because the tenant surrendered the property, thereby voiding any additional duty on his part as guarantor. The district court denied the motion on the grounds that the language of the guaranty stated that a surrender of the premises could not occur if the tenant was in breach of the terms of the lease agreement. The court further held that the tenant was not absolved of liability merely because the landlord relet the premises, where the landlord was not made whole by the reletting.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.