The case which has been selected for the purpose of this assignment is the case of Gamesa Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 270. The case is in relation to breach of contract.

The presence of lay in relation to a business environment is critical for the purpose of successful carrying out of business transactions. In the given situation the law provides rights and duties to those parties who are involved in business transactions. In addition the law sets out fines and penalties which a party may be subjected to in relation to breach of law. Further the law in terms of business act as a guideline for parties on which they can base their transactions and ensure good and ethical practices in business. Where business law is not present there would be a chaos created in relation to the rights and obligations of parties involves and businesses would not be able to operate effectively. 

The parties who are a part of this legal case are both incorporated companies. The claimant by whom the claim in relation to this case has been filed is Gamesa Energy USA. On the other hand the party who is defending the claim made by the claimant is Ten Penn Center hereby addressed as the defendants. 

In the given situation the claimant had rented a property which is owned by the defendant. The rent was based on a lease agreement which was about to come to be concluded on September 1 2018. The lease had a term according to which the claimants were entitled to receive an amount as “improvement allowance” which they had the right to use for the purpose of customizing the property based on their needs. In addition rights had been provided to the claimant through the lease agreement whereby that had the option of subletting the property. Although the right was subjected to obtaining consent from the defendant the defendant count not unreasonably deny the right to the plaintiff and had not notify their decision to the claimant within  a fixed period of time  which was 30 days from the day the requires is made.

After leasing the property for many years the claimant came to a decision that they want to sublet the property to another company Viridity Energy who is hereby referred to as the third party. The subletting had been approved by the defendant. The defendant wanted to relocate to a different premise due to business needs and had notified about the same to the defendant. They also notified that they will not stop the payment of rent to the defendant and are in search of another subtenant. The claimant had been further assisted by the agents of the defendants in the process of moving out. The claimant further proposed the defendant that they want to sublet the property to a new party. However the defendant did not respond to the request of the plaintiff and further they were informed that as they had moved out of the property without the permission of the defendant they have contravened the lease agreement and are no longer entitled to the “improvement allowance”.

Identify the specific disagreement between the parties.

The specific disagreement between the parties was that the claimant made a claim for the breach of contract done by the defendant and the defendant argued that the contract had been actually breached through the actions of the claimant as they moved out of the property without permission and against the lease agreement.

The court had made a ruling in favor of the claimant in this case. It was held by the court that it is actually the defendants who have violated the terms of the contract by continuing to accept rent payment by the claimant and not proving notice related to the permission of subletting within the stipulated period of 30 days which had been provided by the claimant.

In this case the court relied on the judicial concept that the defendant had acted in a malicious manner as they continued to accept the rent from the plaintiff even when they had left the property without the permission of the defendant (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016). The defendant had waived its rights under contract by continuing to accept the payment. Further the court relied on the rules of agency as the agents of the defendant had themselves assisted the claimant to move out of the property. This signifies that consent had been provided by the defendant in relation to moving out of the property by the plaintiffs (Smits, 2017).

Yes I completely agree with the decision provided by the court. It is completely evident in this case that the defendant had acted in a malicious manner by continuing to accept rent payment by the claimant and not proving notice related to the permission of subletting within the stipulated period of 30 days which had been provided by the claimant. The claimant had done an act which could be considered as a breach of contract as they moved out without the permission of the defendant. However the right against such breach had been waived as the defendant continued to accept rent form the claimant.

References:

Gamesa Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 270

Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2016). Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.

Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017). Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.