Cantanese leased a building for the operation of his drugstore from Saputa. He moved his drugstore from Saputa’s building to another location but continued to pay rent to Saputa. Saputa, fearing that he was losing his tenant, entered the premises without Cantanese’s permission and made extensive alterations to the premises to suit two physicians who had agreed to rent the premises from Saputa. Cantanese informed Saputa that he regarded the making of the unauthorized repairs as grounds for canceling the lease. Saputa then claimed that Cantanese was liable for the difference between the rent that Cantanese had agreed to pay and the rent that the doctors would pay for the remainder of the term of the Cantanese lease. Was Cantanese liable for such rent? [Saputa v. Cantanese, 182 So.2d 826 (La. App.)]

  • CreatedJune 06, 2014
  • Files Included
Post your question