Apple D'Or Tree, Inc. v. Webster-Dudley Sand & Gravel, Inc., 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 49 (2008)

Citation: Apple D'Or Tree, Inc. v. Webster-Dudley Sand & Gravel, Inc., 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 49 (2008)
Parent Document: Apple D'Or Tree, Inc. v. Webster-Dudley Sand & Gravel, Inc., 24 Mass. L. Rptr. 49 (2008)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2008-05-16
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8356824/apple-dor-tree-inc-v-webster-du... ↗

Full Text

1,120 chars

Under the common law, the purpose of a commercial lease was the right to possess the land. See Boston Hous. Auth. v. Hemingway, 363 Mass. 184, 189 (1973) (“The right to possession of the land constituted the chief element of the [landlord tenant] exchange”). The basic rule was that a tenant was required to pay rent so long as he was in possession of the land. See id. The only time the tenant was relieved of the obligation was when the tenant lost possession of the land through actual or constructive eviction. See e.g., Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp., 340 Mass. 124, 127 (1959) (tenant allowed to terminate lease and discontinue payment of rent based on landlord’s constructive eviction in failing to provide light, heat, power, and elevator service). The lessee’s obligation to pay rent was distinct from the lessor’s duty to make repairs and maintain the premises. See Royce v. Guggenheim, 106 Mass. 201, 203 (1870). The remedy for a landlord’s breach of a promise to make repairs was to seek damages; terminating the lease and withholding rent were prohibited. See id. This is the rule of independent covenants.

Other Sections in This Document (25)

Full Text