Story Case

. Mr. R. Anton was a painter and interior decorator. He entered into an agreement with his landlord, Mr. A. Frear, whereby it was agreed that Mr. Anton should thereafter pay rent in painting and decorating service upon Mr. Frear's flats. The lease read "that the tenant agrees to do decorating and painting in exchange for rent." Mr. Anton made many applications to Mr. Frear during the year, requesting that he be given an opportunity to "work out his rent," but was constantly evaded with the answer, "Well, Mr. Anton, we have just had another man do that work for us." At the end of the year, Mr. Frear sued Mr. Anton for reasonable rental, charging that Mr. Anton had not done any work, and, therefore, was indebted to him. Mr. Anton proved that Mr. Frear had had much decorating work done in his flats, but that he, Mr. Anton, had not been permitted to do any of this work, although always ready and willing to do so. Will Mr. Frear recover?

Ruling Court Case. Young Vs. Collett, Volume 63, Michigan Reports, Page 332

Young, the owner of a certain building, leased it to Collett and others, as trustees of a certain secret order. In the lease, it was agreed by Collett and the others that the building was to be occupied for lodge purposes only, and in no case to be used for any purpose deemed extra hazardous, on account of fire. Now it was found that the floors of the building were not sufficiently deadened so that the affairs of the secret order could be carried on. Young was notified, and he promised to remedy it, but never did so. The lodge then moved out and went to another building. Young now brings this action for rent.

Collett contends that since the building was not suitable for the purposes for which the hall had been engaged, that no rent was due Young.

Mr. Justice Sherwood said: "When a landlord rents a building, and in the lease, as in this case, limits its use to a certain specified purpose, and the tenant agrees to do no more than keep the same in good repair as when taken, it is evident that the landlord recommends the building as suitable for that purpose in the condition it then is, if there are no modifying clauses to the contrary contained in the lease, and it should be so held; otherwise, there would be no consideration for the tenant's agreement to pay rent." Judgment was given for Collett.

Ruling Law. Story Case Answer

As a general rule, the owner of property, in making the lease, impliedly covenants with his tenant, that he may take possession, and that he will not be molested during the term. On the other hand, it is a general rule that the owner does not covenant that the premises are tenantable, fit for the purpose for which they were engaged, or that they are suitable for any purpose. In some exceptional cases, like the Court Case heretofore given, Young vs. Collett, where the owner restricts the tenant to a specific use of the property, it is held that the owner impliedly covenants that the property is fit for that purpose.

In the Story Case, there was no covenant in the lease that Mr. Frear would have work for Mr. Anton to do, and the only question is whether the court will imply such an agreement. As a matter of common sense, it must be true that when a man covenants to accept services in lieu of rent, he impliedly agrees that he will place no obstacles in the way of the tenant to do such service. Mr. Frear cannot recover from Mr. Anton.