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
1,170 charsOn plaintiff’s claim for rent, defendant contends that plaintiff failed to make a submissible case, claiming the evidence showed as a matter of law a breach of plaintiff’s covenant to repair “with all reasonable speed and promptness” which amounted to a constructive eviction entitling. defendant to abandon the premises: Defendant claims that it did abandon the premises within a reasonable time (by September 30th) and therefore is not liable for rent after that time. Defendant also claims that, if there were fact issues as to constructive eviction, Instruction 2 was erroneous because it directed a verdict on the finding that plaintiff commenced repairs before defendant started to move and "completed restoration of the walls and roof before the premises had been fully vacated by defendant. Plaintiff contends there was no constructive eviction because the work of restoration was commenced while defendant was still in possession of the premises and was completed before the premises were wholly abandoned. For the reasons hereinafter stated, our conclusion is that there were fact issues for the jury as to constructive eviction and defendant’s waiver thereof.