Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Citation
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-10-12
Other Sections in This Document (27)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Property Exchange & Sales, Inc. v. King, 863 S.W.2d 12 (1993)
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
654 charsPESI alleged that prior to Dee. 29, 1984, the townhouse was rented to a third party and that PESI wanted to sublet the premises. PESI also alleged that the defendants agreed that PESI could “take over” the premises if it signed a new lease. PESI alleged further that if it returned the townhouse in the same condition as when the lease was signed the defendants promised to refund the security deposit, that PESI did return the townhouse in the same condition and that the defendants failed to return the deposit. In Count II, PESI alleged similar facts and based its theory on alleged violations of the Merchandising Practices Act, ch. 407, RSMo 1986. 1