Rescission Of Lease Agreement
The Court of Appeal quashed the court`s statement that the lease was cancelled because “the fact that the tenant remained on the site and received benefits under the lease is totally inconsistent with the application to cancel the lease.” Had the Tenant chosen to relocate, the Tenant could have argued that there had been a constructive evacuation because the City of South Miami had not issued a work permit; However, the tenant did not choose this course. Instead, the tenant remained in the rented premises and continued his business, allegedly under the control of the written lease. Id. As a result, the landlord was allowed to recover the outstanding rent. Id. to 291. Keywords: real estate, landlord, tenant, lease, lease, termination, Estoppel, contract No. See Morris Investment Partnership v. Figueroa, 698 So. 2d 288 (Fla.3d DCA 1997). In Morris, the landlord and tenant entered into a commercial lease agreement in which the tenant was to operate an auto repair shop on the City of South Miami site.
Id. to 289. The Tenant then applied for a work permit and the City of South Miami rejected the application because a zonarification rule requires businesses to have a certain number of parking spaces off the street. Id. While the refusal of the professional licence was contested, the tenant continued to occupy the leased property and operated the business without a licence. Id. Fifteen months later, but before the lease expired, the tenant moved from the leased property. Id.
The tenant did not pay the rent for several months of occupancy, claiming that the lessor did not bring the property into compliance with the zonace settlement or otherwise challenged the refusal of the licence. Id. The landlord asked for the outstanding rent. Id. In other contracts, the Florida Supreme Court has found that the annulment of the courts is very unfavourable, especially if one of the parties reaps benefits from that contract. Rood Co., Inc. v Bd. Of Public Instruction of Dade County, 102 So. 2d 139 (1958); see also Luraline Products Corp.
v. Architectural Lighting, Inc., 207 So. 2d 502 (Fla.3d DCA 1968) (The party waived the right to renounce an agreement by accepting its benefits and stated: “The principle that a person wishing to revoke a contract must do so within a reasonable time so that the parties can have the right to restore the conditions of dissemination as closely as possible, has often been recognized in Florida”; Steinberg v. Bay Terrace Apartment Hotel, Inc., 375 So. 2d 1089 (Fla.3d DCA 1979) (confirmation of the rejection of the counterclaim for termination or termination of a contract, because “the appeal of the resignation is clearly not favoured by the courts, particularly if the complainant did not immediately deny the contract as binding on him and a behaviour that manifests itself as contradicted. , was not followed; Aravanetes v. Gilbert, 143 So. 2d 825 (Fla.3d DCA 1962) The fact that the tenants were prevented from asserting the original lease and assignment were null and void, since it was indisputable that the complainants accepted the lease, took possession and charged the property, sublet the property and paid rent for a substantial portion of the lease; Lipkin v. Bonita Gardens Apartments, 122 So. 2d 623 (Fla.3d DCA 1960) (finding that despite the absence of a witness signature, the rent was enforceable because the tenants accepted the lease by the landlord, took possession and occupancy of the units and provided rent for part of the term of the tenancy).