Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Full Text

1,421 chars
Plaintiff also contends that the agreement for abatement of the rent for the period during which the warehouse was only partially tenantable was exclusive of defendant’s right to recover damages for breach of covenant to repair. Plaintiff argues that abatement of rent and recovery for loss of profits would be a double recovery for the same loss, citing Weiss v. Mitchell, Tex.Civ.App., 58 S.W.2d 165, 166. However, that case was not for loss of profits but was for damage' -to plaintiff’s goods, after a fire, and it is said: “The buildings were repaired and restored to their former condition before the occurrence of any alleged damage to appellant’s goods.” In Oscar v. Sackville, Tex.Civ.App., 253 S.W. 651, 653, cited as authority for the statement made in Weiss v. Mitchell, supra, the plaintiff sought to recover for both loss of profits and also part of the rent previously paid, which the court said would be a double recovery because plaintiff therein “would be made whole under her contract when she recovered the loss of profits to her business, without regard to the rental value of the leased premises.” In this case, defendant is not seeking to recover any of the rent paid. The reduction of rent to the proportion of the usable part of plaintiff’s building was in accordance with the terms of the lease, which meant that defendant was to be relievéd of paying rent for any part of the warehouse .it *202