Hypothetical - This hypothetical assumes that Venable leased a storefront to Schumann for 10 years, reserving a rent of $5,000 per month, which Schumann promised to pay.

Three years later, Schumann sold his store business to Cobbler, assigning the lease to the premises.
Another 14 months went by and Cobbler abandoned possession and quit paying rent.

(Note: As is the case with most of our hypotheticals regarding Property, the use of visuals greatly enhances the ability to understand the facts and the rules. Please refer to our free Property Advisor course for examples.)

.................................................................................................................
This content is drawn from our Property tutorials on Landlord / Tenant, which contain numerous hypotheticals. If you find this content helpful, you might want to try our free Property Advisor Course. You will need to register for our free account. It's fast, easy and, of course, free.
.................................................................................................................

Question - True or false Venable can still recover rent from Cobbler based on privity on contract even though Cobbler does not have possession of the premises or anything to do with them.

Answer and Explanation - False. Again, the facts indicate no promise by Cobbler to pay rent.

In the absence of such a promise, the law does not imply one on the part of an assignee.

It's true that Cobbler, as the one with a right to possession, is deemed to be reaping value (“rent”) rising up out of the land, and he's therefore liable for rent on a privity of estate basis. He would not, however, have a duty to pay rent based on privity of contract.

The Law School Experience - These and related topics are covered in our tutorials on Property.

To explore some of our free materials, go to The Law School Experience.