Business Law?

Sam enters into a written contract to lease an apartment from Mr.%26amp;Mrs. Simon. The parties signed a printed form leases which says that no pets are allowed. On the lease, there is a handwritten sentence, initialed by all parties, that Sam is allowed to keep his seeing eye dog in the apartment. The Simons attempt to evict Sam because he keeps his dog in his apartment. The Court will rule that


A. Is it the handwritten statement that Sam can have a pet will prevail over form and Sam win


B. the printed words of the form will prevail and Sam will be evicted


C. the lease violates he Statute of Frauds








Tom purchases an IBM from Jonh, a thief, for $550. Later, Tom reconditions the typewritten and sells it to Larry for $750. When the original owner tracks down the stolen typewritten, Larry sues Tom under the theory of


a. warranty of title


b. warranty of merchantability


c. express warranty


d. warranty against infringement

Business Law?
On the lease agreement, it would fall under A: that the handwritten statement has been signed by both, but I also believe that Sam also has a valid claim arising from ADA ( American Disabilities Act) allowing him to keep a seeing eye dog when this was mentioned prior to the rental.





On the IBM issue, it is also A; Warrenty of title. The legal and criminal charge would be Receiving Stolen Property. It would be the responsibility of each buyer to run the serial numbers to check for theft reports. It would then fall back on Tom for failing to do so.





I hope this helps and you can find it useful
Reply:Both are A. Becuase there are conflicting provisions in the lease the court will look to the intent of the parties. Since the provision is written in, it will likely prevail as being the intent of the parties. The lease doesn't violate the statute of frauds because it is in writing.