Issues in a Lease Agreement

Samantha’s Case Study

Samantha, a 10th grade educated, stay-at-home mother who was forced to retire due her ill health, is facing a situation relating to the enforcement of provisions of a lease that she signed without reading. This case is an example of a scenario surrounding enforcement of the provisions of a lease between a landlord and a tenant. As evident in the case, the clauses or provisions in this lease grant the landlord the right to amend the agreement at will. In essence, the lease is structured in a manner that seemingly favors the landlord over his/her tenants. Garson (2006) states that lease agreements between landlords and tenants sometime contain unenforceable clauses or provisions that work in favor of one partly, especially the landlord. In this scenario, the lease is designed in a manner that gives Samantha’s landlord some unenforceable rights.

Samantha can use the concept of severability to invalidate some of the provisions of the lease agreement with the landlord. This concept is used to invalidate some provisions (parts) of a contract between parties that are deemed unenforceable or illegal while the rest of the agreement remains applicable. In Samantha’s situation, she can invalidate Clause 2 of the lease agreement between her and the landlord. This clause grants the landlord the right to amend or alter the lease willfully and at any time. While the provision itself may not necessarily be illegal, it could be considered unenforceable in this scenario since it was not usually included in Samantha’s time and place. Based on the information provided in this case, Clause 1 and 3 are the only ones that are usually included leases in Samantha’s time and place. This implies that Clause 2 is not usually included leases in her time and place and could therefore be considered/deemed unenforceable.

This implies that Samantha would argue that Clause 2, which grants the landlord the right to amend the agreement at any time, was not often included leases in her time and place. By arguing against the inclusion of this clause, Samantha would effectively invalidate the landlord’s amendment that contributed to the breach of lease and eventual lawsuit. Moreover, Samantha could argue that the one-month period given to her by the landlord following the amendment was not sufficient enough to demonstrate “continued residence in the apartment” that equals acceptance of amended condition of the agreement. In this case, if this clause was to be considered enforceable, it does not clearly stipulate the time period that would be adequate to show acceptance of the amendment. Therefore, the wording in the clause is vague to show that Samantha consented to the amended conditions in this agreement.

One of the most important factors to consider when drafting lease agreements is stipulating each provision clearly. Each provision in the lease agreement should be clearly stipulated in order to avoid any confusion that could arise during its enforcement. In this case, the absence of clear guidelines on what constitute continued residence that would translate to acceptance of amended terms is vague and implies that Clause 2 is unenforceable.

Given that Clause 2 in this lease agreement is vague and could be confusing, Samantha’s chances of success in invalidating this provision are very high. The argument that what constitutes acceptance of the conditions of the amendments, which resulted in breach of the lease, would imply that the clause was unenforceable. Even though this provision is not necessarily illegal, the failure to provide clear timelines for acceptance of amendments would imply that it cannot be enforced. If Clause 2 is deemed unenforceable, the landlord’s decision to force Samantha to leave would be null and void. This would imply that Samantha would not be held liable for breach of the lease and for other damages that emerged as a result of her breach of lease. Therefore, Samantha would not need to pay the $500 for advance rent concession and $200 in other damages.