Legal Term of the Week (TM)

quiet enjoyment--the right to enjoy and use premises (particularly a residence) in peace and without interference. Quiet enjoyment is often a condition included in a lease. Thus, if the landlord interferes with quiet enjoyment, he/she may be sued for breach of contract. Disturbance of quiet enjoyment by another can be a "nuisance" for which a lawsuit may be brought to halt the interference or obtain damages for it.




This week's term is courtesy of Law.com.

Comments

[Hunc T. Caveto]

The question is if we can mitigate the damages caused by a landlord's breach of quiet enjoyment by terminating the breaching activity. In true lawschool form, I present a hypo to illustrate my point:

Tenants JD, Hunc, and JC/Juris are lessees/assignee in an owner-occupied two flat. Lessor lives in the higher floors with skanky wife W, and hell child C. Lessor attempted to improve the leased premises prior to the lease term in question, but failed miserably leaving the premises in a state that has caused the following:
1. water damage
2. leaking pipes
3. mold growth
4. indeterminate foul smells (admittedly we still don't know if that was me or JD)
5. floors with unexpected changes in elevation
6. faulty electric circuitry
7. loose floor boards, and finally
8. the unleashed fury of chaos caused by the aforementioned hell child C

Part 1: which of the above are potential breaches of quiet enjoyment?
Part 2: Must tenants mitigate their damages?
Part 3: If tenants choose to mitigate just one of the 8 issues, and that mitigation happens to be the slow, yet silent elimination of the hell child, what methods of mitigation would be accepted?

you have 10 seconds, go.