What is &quot;distress,&quot; as in &quot;distress for rent&quot;? There have been several distress for rent acts in the 17th and 18th centuries, which provide a right for distress. What is the nature of this right and the origin of its name?
Distress or distraint refers to a right to seize the personal property of a wrong-doer to satisfy a demand. The landlord might seize your horse for non-payment of rent, under this right. For example (1414) &quot;Full power and autorite..the same tenantz and tenantdris til distreyn and hald, till all rerages and dettes..be assethid&quot;. This is an example of Law French, deriving from Old French destreindre &quot;to strain, press, wring, vex extremely, straighten&quot; and Old French destresser, destrecier, both ultimately derives from Latin distringere (distringo)..
I've retracted and replaced my previous answer. It is a citation to legal authority. It is probably a reference to the book &quot;Hale, The History of the Pleas of the Crown Hale PC&quot; (originally published 1736 with later editions also printed) (see 4.2.3) with Hale abbreviated &quot;Hal.&quot;, &quot;pl.&quot; being an abbreviation for &quot;plea&quot; (see 4.2.2) and &quot;cr.&quot; being an abbreviation for &quot;crown&quot;. Standard citation form is to spell it out, but if it is cited repeatedly later instances might be abbreviated. The link is to a scanned version of the out of copyright historical legal treatise on criminal procedure and substantive criminal law. Wikipedia also discusses it as does a law library Wiki.
The historical root is Old French sieute, sivre meaning &quot;follow, pursue&quot;. You pursue your defendant in court. This is an ordinary legal term in post-Norman England. The root is also invoked every time the government prosecutes a person for a crime. The expression &quot;law suit&quot; is more modern, being a rearrangement of &quot;suit at law&quot;. An early attestation in the legal sense is (1325) Statutes of Realm (Rawl. B.520) (2011) v. 6 Ant ȝif a ne cometh noȝt, þanne a sullen ben iiuged ase for ateint, ant sullen ȝelde duble, þoru þe siwte of þe king, to hoem þat habbeth ihaued þene harm.
Strictly speaking, are damages an element of breach of contract? There are inconsistent formulations of breach of contract. But that inconsistency is inconsequential. What matters is that damages --whether anticipated or actual-- are relevant for ascertaining the remedies for the breaching party's violation(s) of the terms. The wording in Restatement (Second) of Contracts at §355 implies that [punitive] damages are not breach of contract. Other sections reinforce that interpretation by referring to damages as the effect(s) of a breach, not an element of the breach itself. See §243. By contrast, some courts include damages in their formulation of prima facie elements of a breach. Examples are Sellers as Tr. of R&amp;LD Trust II v. Felton, 626 S.W.3d 121, 125 (2021) (mentioning &quot;resulting damages&quot; among the allegations that &quot;support the existence of [a] contract&quot;, brackets added), and CP3 BP Associates LLC v. CSL Plasma Inc., (Missouri CoA, Apr. 2022) (&quot;To establish a prima facie case of breach of lease, a plaintiff must establish [...] that plaintiff was thereby damaged by the breach&quot;). A defendant can be found in breach of contract. But the legal proceedings would be pointless unless the plaintiff sought declaratory relief or can prove damages. That being said, scenarios like the car rental example can entitle the non-breaching party to remedies even if the rented car is not involved in an incident. Primarily the non-breaching party might be entitled to void the contract, given this party's awareness of the counterparty's non-compliance with terms they willfully and knowingly entered. For instance, even in the absence of incidents, an insurer is entitled to rescind a policy if it realizes the insured indulges in recklessness or moral hazard. That is because the insured's conduct contravenes the basic assumption of insured's risk aversion as well as the agreed allocation of risks on which an insurance policy is premised. See Restatement at §§151, 153, and 154(a). In some contexts, the non-breaching party might also be entitled to a reasonable award if the formation of that contract is traceable to opportunity costs or, for instance, if voiding the contract [due to the counterparty's breach] causes the non-breaching party administrative expenses.
In a normal residential lease, the tenant is responsible for damage beyond ordinary wear and tear. Scuff marks may or may not be ordinary wear and tear depending on their severity and how they were caused. For example, scuff marks in a hall or stair caused by normal movement would be ordinary wear and tear and therefore the landlord's cost while a scrape caused by moving furniture in or out would be the tenant's cost. If these were tenant's issues they would have to be extensive and severe to justify a total repaint.
Unfortunately, your relative is more in the wrong here First, the COVID situation does not change anyone's rights and obligations under a contract (see What effect does an event like the current Covid-19 pandemic have on contractural obligations?). So the landlord (through their agent) is obliged to provide the property and your relative is obliged to pay the rent and to occupy the premises (most residential leases contain a requirement for the tenant to live in the premises and not leave it empty). Your relative (through you) has indicated that she will be in breach of her contract. The agent has considered her position and has offered two (IMO generous) alternatives: Allow her to continue with the lease without taking possession providing the rent is paid. To release her from her obligations under the contract and return the rent. To put it in perspective, if your relative simply "walked away", she would be liable for the rent until a new tenant was found and, if that new tenant was paying less rent than she was, the difference for the duration of the lease plus the costs of finding a new tenant - advertising, agent's fees (usually 1 month's rent) etc. Now, the landlord has an obligation to minimise your costs so advertising the property could just be prudent. However, if they lease it when your relative's contract has not been properly terminated then it is they who are in breach. Surely they can't take the rent and offer to re-let the property at the same time? Surely they can. What they can't do is relet the property without properly terminating your relative's lease. Would they even be entitled to retain the deposit under these circumstances? Absolutely. The deposit is to cover their losses if your relative breaks the lease - as she has indicated she is going to do (this is called anticipatory breach). Finally, I'd rather not go down this route but is there any protection for my relative for not being forcefully 'evicted' - since she's paid the deposit, rent - and those haven't been returned? Having never taken possession, she is not being evicted.
First, the clearly redundant phrase is “applicable laws” - these apply to everything. Second, some acts, particularly consumer protection or sale of goods acts imply provisions into a contract, create obligations that sit beside the contract or create equitable remedies. Many of these can be limited or excluded but this needs to be done explicitly. Third, in legal writing, clarity is preferred to brevity - nice if you can get both but if not, be clear rather than brief. Fourth, the contract is not the document. The document is a record of the “meeting of the minds” that formed the contract. In the event of a dispute, it may be useful to know that particular laws were specifically considered by the parties. Fifth, in legal writing, just as all writing, some people are better than others.
Does the legal usage of the word court as in a court of law derive from the idea of a royal court, as an expression of the idea that the original courts of law were ultimately simple vehicles for the exercise or discharge of royal authority on behalf of the royal sovereign? Yes: The meaning of a judicial assembly is first attested in the 12th century, and derives from the earlier usage to designate a sovereign and his entourage, which met to adjudicate disputes....