[Download] "F. Rosenberg Elevator Co. v. F. A. Goll" by Supreme Court of Wisconsin # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: F. Rosenberg Elevator Co. v. F. A. Goll
- Author : Supreme Court of Wisconsin
- Release Date : January 08, 1963
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 72 KB
Description
The action is brought for declaratory relief under sec. 269.56, Stats. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff Rosenberg
Elevator Company and Megal Construction Company entered into a 'lease' agreement on January 26, 1960, under which Megal Construction
Company agreed, at its cost and expense and on prescribed plans and specifications, to erect upon the subject premises a one-story
building which was to be occupied by the plaintiff Rosenberg Elevator Company as lessee when it was completed. The plaintiff-lessee
was to pay a yearly rental of $11,118.56 in monthly installments of $926.55. The first lease, running for ten years, gave
the plaintiff two successive options to renew the lease for additional five-year periods. Furthermore, beginning five years
from the date of the commencement of the ten-year lease, plaintiff was given an option to purchase the property for $138,982.
All covenants, conditions and agreements in said lease were to be binding upon the assignees of Megal. The building was constructed
and the lessee took possession prior to July 1, 1960. On or about July 1, 1960, Megal conveyed the land and assigned the lease
to the defendant. As alleged by the plaintiff, the plans and specifications provided that the building was to be 'plus 6 inches
over street grade' but after the paving of the street and sidewalk the building was substantially below grade to the extent
of between 6 and 24 inches. The plaintiff further alleges that the monthly rental value of the premises, because of the breach of contract, was reduced
$200 per month and the market value of the property $25,000. The complaint alleges that the defendant has refused to recognize
the breach of contract, the damages resulting therefrom and has refused to permit plaintiff either a reduction in rental or
a reduction in the option price of the premises.