Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Citation
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Parent Document
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1961-04-10
Other Sections in This Document (22)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
- Yaffe v. American Fixture, Inc., 345 S.W.2d 195 (1961)
Full Text
1,128 charsThe warehouse was in the Mill Creek area- of St. Louis which was to be cleared of existing buildings for a municipal .redevelopment project so that defendant would have to move after its lease expired. There was evidence that because of this situation, plaintiff did not decide to restore the building for some time after it was damaged but plaintiff also delayed restoration work because of a controversy with his insurance company over settlement for damages. Although plaintiff obtained a bid for making repairs from a contractor, about the middle of July, plaintiff did not claim authorization to commence work was made until about the 15th of August and the contractor said plaintiff did not order work commenced until the 18th or 19th of August. Representatives of defendant met with plaintiff on July 26th and talked about terminating the lease as of July 31st, with defendant thereafter occupying the premises as a month to month tenant at rental proportionate to the .usable part of the building. Defendant claimed plaintiff orally agreed to do so and on July 29th defendant wrote a letter to plaintiff stating its *197