Essay about Summaries of Articles Business Law

1174 Words May 23rd, 2011 5 Pages
1 Lindh v. Surman (742. A. 2d 643 (Sup.CT.PA.1999)) chap 23

August 1993, Rodger Lindh proposed with a $17,400 engagement ring to Janis Surman. Two months later the engagement was broken with a mutual understanding. Rodger and Janis reconciled, with Rodger again proposing with the same engagement ring, which Janis accepted. Unfortunately a year later Rodger broke the engagement off again and asked the ring back. This time however Janis refused to give back the ring. Rodger sued and Janis appealed.

The main purpose of this article is to decide whether the receiver of an engagement ring must return the ring or its equivalent value when the donor breaks the engagement. Pennsylvania law treats the giving of an engagement
…show more content…
Lois was not happy with this furnace and in the fall of 1995 persuaded her parents to buy an oil furnace to replace the wood furnace in the rental house. During the process of installing the new oil furnace, the wood furnace was removed and sends to the landfill. There was a hole drilled in the wall to accommodate the fuel line and the Olbeksons had to widen an existing doorway in the basement. The Olbeksons paid $2,525 to have everything installed. The Hubers acquiesced in the instillation but would have not done so if they had believed that they would be required to purchase it.

During the time Lois lived in the Hubers’ rental house, the Hubers spent about $28,000 remodeling it and collected only $175 per month for rent. Lois admitted that the reasonable rental value of the house was $250 per month. The Huberts made an agreement that Lois signed which purported to tie the low rent to compensation for the cost of the furnace. Lois continued to rent the house with the low rent till September 2000, even though the agreement was that Lois would enjoy reduced rent only till December 31, 1997. At the end of Lois’s tenancy, the Olbekson removed the outside oil tank, claiming the right to remove the oil furnace that they had bought.

The Olbekson’s claim is for conversion, which requires: Ownership of property, a right of possession, and unauthorized dominion over the property by another resulting in damages. There

Related Documents