Damages for repudiation of contract before the work was commenced Bob wants to build a greenhouse and a garage on his land. He contracts Matt to build the greenhouse only as Matt does not specialize in building garages. They agree that Matt starts the job in 3 weeks. A few days later Bob comes across John who is happy to build both the greenhouse and garage. Bob would prefer that both things are built by the same man, but he is now obliged to honor the contract with Matt, so he cannot give the greenhouse job to John unless Matt is happy to terminate the contract. What kind of damages would be awarded to Matt by the court if Bob, instead of mutually terminating the contract, simply refuses to honor it and gets John to build the both things? Would that damage be comparable to the amount that Bob would have paid to Matt if the contract was honored, or much less?
There are lot of different ways a court could calculate damages -- the amount Matt was promised, the amount he ended up behind in reliance on that promise -- but I'd expect that the damages would be the difference between what was contracted for and what he actually made on whatever work he ended up doing instead of the garage. It's practically inconceivable, based on these facts, that a court would order specific performance. There's no reason to think that monetary damages would be insufficient to make the parties whole, and the garage would probably already be built by the time the court got around to damages.
In the lease agreement we stipulated that rent would be 50% off until the building received full services and then the full rent payment would be due. Ouch. I bet the lease agreement also says something like &quot;no other agreements verbal or otherwise are in effect for this agreement.&quot; So what you did was release the landlord from the responsibility to make the building habitable. Pretty sure you will need a lawyer to unwind this.
There have been cases in the UK where paying someone's legal bills was interpreted as joining their case. So when A with no money libels someone, and B with deep pockets pays A's lawyer, then B risks being held liable for damages if A gets convicted. So B should be very careful. Just giving you money is probably the safest. But attorney-client privilege is between attorney and client. I have been laid off twice with my company asking me to take an employment lawyer and paying for it. (Interestingly each time the bill was exactly the maximum amount the company was willing to pay :-) It would have been absurd if my company could demand information that is under attorney-client privilege just because they paid the bill. Why did two companies pay the lawyers bill? Because that way they ensure that the separation is without problems. The lawyer explained the settlement contract and what it meant exactly. They also checked that the contract didn’t contain anything unacceptable which the company would have fixed. So if I had tried to sue them later I would have no chance to win (but there was no reason to sue). Another reason not to sue was that the company offered I settlement that was very significantly more than was legally required, but if you sued them you would only get what you got in court - most likely less than you would get without suing. So basically they paid to make sure I would have no reason to sue them later.
Will Bob be dismissed per res judicata when he files? No. His claim is different from Rob's. These are two separate contracts, involving different parties, and the company's torts are different in each matter. Your description reflects that only Rob's claim(s) has(have) been adjudged. Will Bob get to seek punitive damages even if Rob is already awarded some? Section 1974(c)(1) of the California Civil Code entitles Bob to &quot;a civil penalty which shall not exceed two times the amount of actual damages&quot; if Bob proves that the company's noncompliance was willful. These remedies do not depend on whether Rob was awarded damages (punitive or otherwise) as a result of his claim against the company. There is no indication in your description that Bob's suit is a class action or that he is bringing an action of behalf of others in addition to himself. Therefore, the exception in the latter statement of section 1974(c)(1) is inapplicable.
You could first look for a force majeure clause in the lease which says something about natural disasters and the like. If there is a clause which says e.g. "Landlord will not be held responsible for problems arising from ice storms", that doesn't help you, but maybe it specifies e.g. rent reduction of $2/day for lack of electricity. That doesn't mean he can ignore the law. However, in this situation, a particular reading of the law ("there must be an infallible supply of electricity") imposes an impossible requirement on the landlord, and the courts probably won't require a landlord to do the impossible. It is not clear that your situation violates either the letter or the spirit of the law. Take clause (d): your "heating facilities" presumably conformed to applicable law at the time of installation and have since been maintained, and they are adequate, but they don't work if the grid doesn't supply power (and that is not a matter under the landlord's control). In other words, he provided the "infrastructure", and the problem is on the power company's end. Likewise "electrical lighting with wiring and electrical equipment" -- an ordinary interpretation of that clause is "wires and fixtures", and doesn't include "flow of electrons", which is supplied by your local power company.
As I understand it you are responsible for removing the stump and replacing the tree. The fact that a particular method was agreed (and failed) doesn’t relieve you of that responsibility. If a contract doesn’t specify a time for fulfilling an obligation then it must be done within a reasonable time. That is, a time that is reasonable in the particular circumstances. You suggested a time of April/May - it is now November and is probably beyond a reasonable time. By not stating a year, a reasonable interpretation is that you meant this year i.e. 2018. It would appear that you are in breach of your agreement and the other party can take whatever action the agreement contemplates.
The fact that you're not a native speaker of English doesn't alter the legal situation. If you literally had no understanding of English but for some reason you signed a piece of paper, then you might argue that there was no agreement in the first place, but obviously you do speak some English. Most people don't actually understand what contracts mean (on both sides). Contracts are still enforced, based on what the contract says. The move-in data is proposed, not firm, and it even indicates what the charges are if your circumstances change and the dates have to change (whereas is their circumstances change, they wouldn't have a basis for charging extra). It also does say that there will be no refund if you change your mind. So the piece of paper says "No refund". The problem seems to be that there's an "agent" whose statements you relied on, who is ultimately responsible for this problem, and s/he implied that you could get a refund. It's not clear what kind of "agent" this is (is he working for you, or for the owners?). You'd have a somewhat different legal basis depending on which it is, but you could sue someone in either event, assuming that you could actually persuade the court that you were given false information which you relied on. The statement "they will refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is false; the statement "they may refund your money if the guy doesn't move out by the 16th" is true. If the latter was the statement that you relied on, then you knew (or should have known) that that isn't a promise, it's just a guess, and if you read the piece of paper you know that it's a promise with no basis. So I would say it comes down to establishing what promise was made to you. Arguing that the agent "made" you sign isn't going to get you anywhere (unless you can prove actual coersion).
I will not speak to your specific situation. I am unfamiliar with the jurisdiction and real estate contracts are one of the most highly regulated contracts so local statutes may override common law. In general, the terms of a contract are what the parties agree; the written document is not the contract - it is evidence of the contract. In a case where the parties agree that the written version is wrong then the written version is wrong. Where the parties disagree that the written version is wrong (or agree that it is wrong but disagree as to how) then each will need to provide evidence to support their position. A signed written contract that supports one parties position is extremely strong evidence! The other party would need to provide some overwhelming evidence to trump this. The general position that the courts take is that the written contract accurately documents the agreement unless someone can prove that it doesn't.