What was Kemp’s relationship to the plaintiff? To the defendant?
Kemp was a business partner to the plaintiff; this is because the plaintiff leased a certain number of gasoline filling stations to him.
To the defendant, Kemp was a buyer to his property; Kemp was purchasing a business known as Webb Oil Company and myriad related piece of properties from defendants.
What happened in February, 1956?
In February 1956, the plaintiff held a conversation with the agent of the defendant in Florida.
What is consideration?
In law, consideration is money or payment. It is an important element in the law of contracts and it is a benefit that has to be bargained for between the parties, and is the important reason for individuals to get involved in a contract.
Plaintiff made two separate arguments in support of his theory that defendant should pay the rent. One of them was based on a statute and the other was based on a common law contract theory. What were the two arguments?
With respect to common law, the plaintiff made an argument that the defendant is liable for rents in pursuance of M.S.A540.04, in relation to the liability for rent of individuals that have land in their possession. This court had previously pointed out that [HNI] the statute never created a new liability, but rather made divisible as to the amount of money and apportionable as to a time a liability that was in existence at common law but was neither apportionable or divisible.
The plaintiff also made a claim that the transaction between the defendant and Kemp was happened to be an assignment for the benefit of creditors that imposed an obligation upon the defendant to make payments to the plaintiff.
Which of Plaintiff’s two arguments applies to our fact pattern?
The common law claim that the plaintiff made an argument that the defendant is liable for rents in pursuance of M.S.A540.04 in relation to the liability for rent of individuals that have land in their possession applies to our fact pattern.