Question

73- 75 Main Avenue, LLC, agreed to lease a portion of the commercial property at 73 Main Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut, to PP Door Enterprise, Inc. Nan Zhang, as manager of PP Door, signed the lease agreement. The lessor required the principal officers of PP Door to execute personal guaranties. In addition, the principal officers agreed to provide the lessor with credit information. Apparently, both the lessor and the principals of PP Door signed the lease and guaranty agreements that were sent to PP Door’s office. When PP Door failed to make monthly payments, 73- 75 Main Avenue filed a suit against PP Door and its owner Li. At trial, Li testified that she was the sole owner of PP Door but denied that Zhang was its manager. She also denied signing the guaranty agreement. She claimed that she had signed the credit authorization form because Zhang had told her he was too young to have good credit. Li claimed to have no knowledge of the lease agreement. She did admit, however, that she had paid the rent. She claimed that Zhang had been in a car accident and had asked her to help pay his bills, including the rent at 73 Main Avenue. Li further testified that she did not see the name PP Door on the storefront of the leased location.
(a) Li argued that she was not liable on the lease agree-ment because Zhang was not authorized to bind her to the lease. Do the facts support Li? Why or why not?
(b) Li claimed that the guaranty for rent was not enforce-able against her. Why might the court agree?




$1.99
Sales3
Views295
Comments0
  • CreatedJune 18, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question
5000