Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Citation
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Parent Document
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1987-12-22
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- Lastra v. Intercontinental Investments Co., 745 S.W.2d 703 (1987)
- 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
- Section 535
- Section 535
Full Text
683 charsAt the time the lease was made between appellants and respondent, appellants paid a security deposit of $300.00 to guarantee against damage to the apartment. The agreement provided that the deposit was refundable upon surrender of the premises if the tenant was not then in default., When appellants learned the apartment would not be available as promised, they requested a refund of the security deposit. The request was denied on the basis that, the sum would be applied against rentals until the apartment was re-let. In fact, new tenants were obtained immediately with no loss of rentals to respondent. The security deposit was not tendered to appellants until September, 1985.1