benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace
MMLU-Pro / 1687 / A property owner who owner her property in fee simple leased a three-story house…
Problem
Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.
question
A property owner who owner her property in fee simple leased a three-story house and the 21 -acre tract upon which it stood to a friend for a term of 10 years. By the terms of the lease, the friend expressly covenanted to pay a monthly rental of 300, but was silent concerning the payment of taxes. The owner never objected to this assignment. Six months after the assignment, the owner conveyed her property interest in the premises to a developer. During the cousin's tenancy, the State Highway Authority filed proceedings to condemn two acres of the tract for the purpose of highway construction. As a result, the cousin contacted the developer and informed him that he should be entitled to an apportioned reduction in the rental. After the developer refused to reduce the rent, the cousin brings an action to have his rent apportioned pro tanto. Judgment should be for
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
A property owner who owner her property in fee simple leased a three-story house and the 21 -acre tract upon which it stood to a friend for a term of 10 years. By the terms of the lease, the friend expressly covenanted to pay a monthly rental of 300andtopaythetaxesonthepremisesduringthetermofthelease.Theleasealsostipulatedthatthefriend,aslessee,maynotassignorsubleasethesaidpremises.Thefriendandhisfamilylivedinthehousefortwoyears.Thenthefriendassignedhisleaseholdinterestinthepropertytoacousin,whowasunawareoftheprohibitionagainstassignments.Thiswrittenassignmentexpresslyprovidedthatthecousinwouldpaytheownerthemonthlyrentalof300, but was silent concerning the payment of taxes. The owner never objected to this assignment. Six months after the assignment, the owner conveyed her property interest in the premises to a developer. During the cousin's tenancy, the State Highway Authority filed proceedings to condemn two acres of the tract for the purpose of highway construction. As a result, the cousin contacted the developer and informed him that he should be entitled to an apportioned reduction in the rental. After the developer refused to reduce the rent, the cousin brings an action to have his rent apportioned pro tanto. Judgment should be for
Original LaTeX notation
A property owner who owner her property in fee simple leased a three-story house and the 21 -acre tract upon which it stood to a friend for a term of 10 years. By the terms of the lease, the friend expressly covenanted to pay a monthly rental of $300 and to pay the taxes on the premises during the term of the lease. The lease also stipulated that the friend, as lessee, may not assign or sublease the said premises. The friend and his family lived in the house for two years. Then the friend assigned his leasehold interest in the property to a cousin, who was unaware of the prohibition against assignments. This written assignment expressly provided that the cousin would pay the owner the monthly rental of $300, but was silent concerning the payment of taxes. The owner never objected to this assignment. Six months after the assignment, the owner conveyed her property interest in the premises to a developer. During the cousin's tenancy, the State Highway Authority filed proceedings to condemn two acres of the tract for the purpose of highway construction. As a result, the cousin contacted the developer and informed him that he should be entitled to an apportioned reduction in the rental. After the developer refused to reduce the rent, the cousin brings an action to have his rent apportioned pro tanto. Judgment should be for
category
law
options
- the cousin, because eminent domain operates as an apportionment of rent.
- the developer, because the cousin would be held to the original leasehold contract.
- the developer, because the cousin was not a party to the original lease agreement.
- the cousin, because the friend violated the terms of the lease by assigning it without permission.
- the cousin, because the developer did not have the authority to refuse a rent reduction.
- the developer, as the prohibition against assignments was not known by the cousin.
- the cousin, because the condemnation proceedings effectively changed the terms of the lease.
- the developer, although the cousin would be entitled to terminate the lease.
- the cousin, because the value of his leasehold interest was reduced pro tanto.
- the developer, because the cousin failed to pay the taxes as stipulated in the original lease.
src
ori_mmlu-professional_law
Discussion
No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.
See answer Answer published by the source
Artifacts
Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.
No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.
Source and history
initial import