Business Law
Charles Dong
LBS
Prof Calderon
Legal Assignment Two
Enforceability of the Pet Clause in the Lease Rafi should have the right to keep Roscoe in his apartment because his landlord cannot enforce the pet clause of the lease based on the given facts. On one hand, the bilateral mistake in the contract invalidates the lease, and therefore the pet clause is no longer enforceable. Also, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to help Rafi not only keep his dog in the apartment but also recover the boarding fee from his landlord, as he relies on the landlord’s promise.
There is a bilateral mistake in the contract, and therefore the contract is invalid When both parties are mistaken about a fact that goes to the heart of the contract, then either party has the option to avoid the contract. The landlord attempts to force Rafi to get rid of his dog under the pet clause. However, this pet clause is invalid due to a bilateral mistake on understanding the term “bulldog.” When discussing whether a bulldog is allowed in the apartment, Rafi was thinking of his English bulldog and his landlord was thinking of a French bulldog. This mistaken fact grants Rafi power to avoid the pet clause. There are some similarities between Rafi’s case and some previous cases in which the court rules the contracts to be invalid due to bilateral mistakes. In Raffles, the court makes it clear that the contract is avoidable if both parties are mistaken about a key term in the contract. When making the contract, the defendant meant one “Pearless” and the plaintiff another. There was no agreement on the same issue, and therefore there is no binding contracti. In Rafi’s case, both parties attempt to make an agreement on what are the exceptions in the pet clause, which is the key of this contract. To some extent, it can be interpreted that part of the pet clause mentions the allowance of bulldogs. However, the two parties are not thinking of the same bulldog; Rafi was thinking of an
LBS
Prof Calderon
Legal Assignment Two
Enforceability of the Pet Clause in the Lease Rafi should have the right to keep Roscoe in his apartment because his landlord cannot enforce the pet clause of the lease based on the given facts. On one hand, the bilateral mistake in the contract invalidates the lease, and therefore the pet clause is no longer enforceable. Also, the doctrine of promissory estoppel can be used to help Rafi not only keep his dog in the apartment but also recover the boarding fee from his landlord, as he relies on the landlord’s promise.
There is a bilateral mistake in the contract, and therefore the contract is invalid When both parties are mistaken about a fact that goes to the heart of the contract, then either party has the option to avoid the contract. The landlord attempts to force Rafi to get rid of his dog under the pet clause. However, this pet clause is invalid due to a bilateral mistake on understanding the term “bulldog.” When discussing whether a bulldog is allowed in the apartment, Rafi was thinking of his English bulldog and his landlord was thinking of a French bulldog. This mistaken fact grants Rafi power to avoid the pet clause. There are some similarities between Rafi’s case and some previous cases in which the court rules the contracts to be invalid due to bilateral mistakes. In Raffles, the court makes it clear that the contract is avoidable if both parties are mistaken about a key term in the contract. When making the contract, the defendant meant one “Pearless” and the plaintiff another. There was no agreement on the same issue, and therefore there is no binding contracti. In Rafi’s case, both parties attempt to make an agreement on what are the exceptions in the pet clause, which is the key of this contract. To some extent, it can be interpreted that part of the pet clause mentions the allowance of bulldogs. However, the two parties are not thinking of the same bulldog; Rafi was thinking of an