 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Walker v. Keith: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
(Created page with "{{Infobox Case Brief |court=Kentucky Court of Appeals |citation=382 S.W.2d 198 |date=October 16, 1964 |subject=Contracts |other_subjects=Property |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-keith |case_text_source=CaseText }}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/walker-v-keith |source_type=Video summary |case_text_source=Quimbee }} }}") |
No edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
|subject=Contracts | |subject=Contracts | ||
|other_subjects=Property | |other_subjects=Property | ||
|facts=*Walker = the landlord = plaintiff in the appeal court | |||
*Keith = a lease-holder = the defendant = tenant | |||
*Walker leased a small lot to Keith for 10 years at $100/month | |||
*At the end of the 10 years, then tenant (Keith) had the option to renew the lease | |||
*At the end of the 10 years, the monthly rent could jump | |||
*At the end of the 10 years, the 2 parties couldn't agree on the monthly rent amount | |||
* | |||
|procedural_history=* Keith sued Walker to enforce the renewal option. | |||
* The Kentucky trial court ruled in favor of Keith. | |||
* Walker was ordered to rent his lot out to Keith at $125/month. | |||
* | |||
|issues=Is a contract to enter a [https://www.quimbee.com/keyterms/future-covenant future covenant] enforceable if it fails to specify all essential terms of the future covenant? | |||
|holding=Commissioner Clay: A contract to form a future covenant must specify all essential terms of the future covenant, leaving nothing for further negotiations. | |||
The renewal clause is un-enforceable. Decision in favor of Walker (the landlord). | |||
|judgment=Reversed | |||
|reasons=* A lease is a contract. | |||
* Rent is a material term of any lease. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-keith | |link=https://casetext.com/case/walker-v-keith | ||
| Line 12: | Line 30: | ||
|source_type=Video summary | |source_type=Video summary | ||
|case_text_source=Quimbee | |case_text_source=Quimbee | ||
}} | |||
|case_videos={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=POneqw1bA2Y | |||
}}{{Infobox Case Brief/Case Video | |||
|service=YouTube | |||
|id=wG56B4ubYhQ | |||
}} | }} | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 00:05, January 28, 2024
| Walker v. Keith | |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 382 S.W.2d 198 |
| Date decided | October 16, 1964 |
Facts
- Walker = the landlord = plaintiff in the appeal court
- Keith = a lease-holder = the defendant = tenant
- Walker leased a small lot to Keith for 10 years at $100/month
- At the end of the 10 years, then tenant (Keith) had the option to renew the lease
- At the end of the 10 years, the monthly rent could jump
- At the end of the 10 years, the 2 parties couldn't agree on the monthly rent amount
Procedural History
- Keith sued Walker to enforce the renewal option.
- The Kentucky trial court ruled in favor of Keith.
- Walker was ordered to rent his lot out to Keith at $125/month.
Issues
Is a contract to enter a future covenant enforceable if it fails to specify all essential terms of the future covenant?
Holding
Commissioner Clay: A contract to form a future covenant must specify all essential terms of the future covenant, leaving nothing for further negotiations.
The renewal clause is un-enforceable. Decision in favor of Walker (the landlord).Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
- A lease is a contract.
- Rent is a material term of any lease.
Resources
