Transcript Document

LOGISTICS
• On Course Page: General Final Exam Info, Office
Hours, Review Session Times, etc.
• Registration:
– Remember to Check System Before Registration Time
for Seats Remaining in Courses
– More Business Associations Seats Being Added
– I’ll Be Here Today Until 6pm & Tomorrow from 8am
• Boston
Review Problem 6F(S152)
Opinion/Dissent
• State Supreme Court in Prior Case:
– Where Commercial Lease Required Landlord’s
Consent to Transfer, the Landlord could not
withhold consent Unreasonably;
– Did not rule on whether T could expressly waive
this reasonableness requirement
• Lease Here: “Tenant may not transfer its
interest in this lease without permission of
the Landlord, which permission maybe
withheld for any reason at all.”
Review Problem 6F(S152)
Opinion/Dissent
Two Issues:
(A) Is Reasonableness Requirement Waivable?
(DENALI Today)
(B) If Not, Were L’s Reasons for Denying
Consent Reasonable (EVERGLADES
Tomorrow)
DENALI: Rev.Prob.6F(A): Is
Reasonableness Requirement re
Consent to Transfer Waivable?
Denali Caribou
EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B):
Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent
Reasonable?
EGRET IN MANGROVE SWAMP
EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B):
Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent
Reasonable?
• L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP;
“no problem” w financial credentials BUT:
1. CEO of PP was “outspoken public advocate” of
political positions L “sharply disagreed with”
2. 5 years earlier, had denied same lease to PP
• Task: Should provide substantive arguments for
and against each of the two reasons at issue
– Could choose to follow cases we read, (e.g., Funk
limiting to economic Qs) but need to defend choice
– Could try to craft new general rules, then follow
EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B):
Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent
Reasonable: Political Differences
• L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP;
“no problem” w financial credentials BUT:
1. CEO of PP was “outspoken public
advocate” of political positions L “sharply
disagreed with”
2. 5 years earlier, had denied same lease to PP
EVERGLADES: Rev.Prob.6F(B):
Were L’s Reasons for Denying Consent
Reasonable: Prior Rejection
• L refuses T attempt to transfer lease rights to PP;
“no problem” w financial credentials BUT:
1. CEO of PP was “outspoken public advocate” of
political positions L “sharply disagreed with”
2. 5 years earlier, L had denied same lease
to PP
Rev.Prob.6F(B) & Reasonableness:
Note on Yeshiva Univ. (Note 3 P706)
• L wanted to exclude Planned Parenthood b/c of
religious concerns re providing contraception
• Language from case (“must be relevant to any
Landlord”) suggests religious concerns not OK.
• BUT also issue of inconsistent application by L
– Birth control courses taught in Hospital run by L
– So doesn’t look like bona fide religious concern
– Asked if hospital courses were embarassment to L,
official replied, “Well, they're in the Bronx."
GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G:
Evidence of Discrimination
Glacier Mountain Lion
GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G:
Evidence of Discrimination
• Possible Discriminatory Reasons for Rejection
– Religion (Not Jewish Enough)
– Inter-Racial or Inter-Faith Relationship
– Israeli
• Possible Non-Discriminatory Reasons?
• Significance of Specific Facts?
– Rebecca Regularly wears Star of David
– Chris wears an earring in the shape of a cross
– Ben says “Black, Red, Green, Whatever. No Problem.”
– Rebecca says “Part of the reason I left Israel is so I
don’t have rabbis watching everything I do.”
GLACIER: Rev.Prob.6G:
Evidence of Discrimination
• Other Evidence Supporting Discriminatory
Reasons?
• Other Evidence Supporting Non-Discriminatory
Reasons?
• Stronger Position Overall? Because?
Chapter 7: Easements
1. Overview & Terminology
2. Interpreting Language
a.
b.
Easement v. Fee
Scope of Express Easements
3. Implied Easements
a.
b.
c.
By Estoppel
By Prescription
By Implication and/or Necessity
Chapter 7: Easements
Overview & Terminology
• Easement = Right to Use Land Owned by Someone
Else for Specific Purpose (e.g., Right of Way)
• Basic Background Info in Readings
• Key Vocabulary:
– Express v. Implied Easements
– Positive v. Negative Easements
– Appurtenant v. In Gross
– Dominant Tenement (Holding) v. Servient Tenement