Pierce v. Hedden

Citations

• 105 La. 294

Syllabus

<p>Syllabus.</p> <p>1. Two leases of the same property were made between the same parties, the first for the single month of February, the second for seven months. A right was granted in the second lease to the lessee to make the repairs needed to place the premises in proper condition. The lessee, to the knowledge of the lessor, made repairs during the first lease. Before the expiration of the first lease, the building was condemned by the city authorities and demolished; both leases being thereby dissolved. Held: The lessor is liable to the lessee for the expenditures made by the latter for repairs and other necessary purposes. The prematurity quoad the commencement of the second lease in the making of the repairs is no bar to the recovery for the outlays made for that purpose.</p> <p>2. Parties in an act of lease can legally broaden or restrict the rights and obligations in respect to warranty. A non-warranty clause covering apparent defects or those communicated -by the lessor to the lessee is valid; such a clause can be made to extend to hidden defects, the seriousness and consequences of which the lessee could not then have well measured, provided the lessor was ignorant of them and it was thoroughly understood that the lessee took the premises such as they were and expressly at his risk and peril! The clause could be set aside for fraud if the lessor knew of them or could have foreseen them at the moment of the contract. In case of doubt as to the scope of the clause, the doubt should be resolved against the lessor.</p> <p>3. It is not to be presumed that the lessee assumed the risk and consequences of defects so radical as to call for the condemnation of the premises as dangerous to the public safety, thereby dissolving the lease.</p>