Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Citation
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Parent Document
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1996-01-23
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
- Siragusa v. Chang Su Park, 913 S.W.2d 915 (1996)
Full Text
613 charsAll of Park’s other points are premised on the notion that the lease provisions were applicable to him and he was entitled to the benefit thereof. He contends the lease was terminated because the Siragusas relet the premises without giving him the ten (10) day notice previously discussed. He also asserts that the Siragusas breached the lease by not giving such notice. And finally, he argues that the Siragusas were acting as his agent, under certain provisions in the lease, in re-letting the premises and by not notifying him of the default, they breached a fiduciary duty to him. However, as discussed supra,