The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1905-08-19

statement to the effect that premises
are tenantable when they are not
such statement being used to induce
the tenant to rent, may justify AN
abandonment of the premises, butNdn
| untitled promise of the landlord made
! before the lease is signed, or at any
time, or afterward, to the effect that
he Will make them tenantabie will not
/ justify an abandonment; and, IL YER
| bal. such promise is void.
This brings us to the general ques-
| tion as to the circumstances under
| which tenants may abandon premises
and refuse to pay rent. We have seen
| that the mere pronise~of the Landlord
| to make repairs which he fails to full
! fill, viii not justify abandoning the
| premises and refusing to pay rent. II
is the usual course pursued by ten
! ants but the courts as rule viii not
permit the tenant thus to take the
remedy into his own hands. There are
! two courses open to the tenant II the
landlord has promised to make re-
pairs. or make Improvements, and fails
! or refuses to do so: one is to sue the
landlord for damages, and the other
is to make the repairs or improve
mentS and sue the landlord for the
cost of them. And the tenant may re-
cover in his judgment not only the
cost of repairs but, for the damage he
has suffered by Interruptions to his
business or otherwise during the time
that the premises were being repaired.
But it is never allowable for the ten
ant TO remain in possession and at the
same time refuse to pay rent; nor is
an unfulfilled promise ground for
abandonment.
To this general statement, which
seems somewhat unjust on its face,
there is the general exception that If
the premises are absolutely unfit for the
purposes for which they we're rented, or
become so through the landlords fault
in not keeping his promise, the tenant
is released from his contract and may
abandon the premises, but this eXcep-
ton has not been upheld in every case.
Where it has been upheld it is only
where there has been q total failure OF
consideration, that is, where premises,
have been totally unfit for the pur-
poses intended, or where the landlord
has broken an express promise to make
them fit
Another class of cases is where the
landlord agrees to make certain re-
pairs or improvements before the ten
ant has once taken possession. We
have seen that after the tenant has
once taken possession broken promise
on the part of a landlord, as rule,
does not justify refusing to pay rent
or abandoning, but where the landlord
has failed to make the repairs or the
improvements and the tenant has not
yet taken possession, the tenant may
refuse to take possession on the ground
that he is released from his contract
Here, as in other cases, we caution the
tenant that if the lease itself is in
writing the landlords agreement re-
garding repairs, to be binding, must
be inserted in the lease itself 1t is
a general rule of the law that where
contract is reduced to writing the law
presumes that the writing contains all
the terms, and one is not permitted to
offer testimony that adds to or varies
the terms as, written. 1t is admissible,
however, to show that after the con-
tract was made it was varied by verbal
agreement.
If the landlord is to make repairs be-
fore possession is to be given to the
tenant and the tenant enters the prem
ises before the repairs are made, he
does not thereby waive his right to
have them made.
AS fraud yitiats q contract so ten
ant may abandon the premises and re-
fuse to pay rent when he was induced
to take the premises by false state
ments. The false statements need not
be in the lease itself; anything said
or done by the landlord. even thotgh
innocently, which is materially false,
and at the same time induces a tenant
to take the premises, will result in an
nulling the contract. The mere con-
cealment by the landlord of some de-
feet, provided the defect renders the
premises dangerous to life or health,
VIII amount to a nisstatements but the
of imInaterial matters will
not so operate.
If the tenant intends to take advant-
age of false statements to surrender his
lease he must do so promptly upon
discovering that the statements were
false. His failure to do so promptly
will lead to the presumption that he
has waived his right. He may not
only abandon the premises in such
cases but he may sue. for damages.
he may remain in pos
session if he pleases, waving his right
to abandon the premises. and may sue
for damages caused by the fraud.-The
Sprague Correspondence School of Law.