Procedural History:
Facts: D leased property to P. Lease agreement said that D responsible for all
repairs and replacements of the roof unless due to P's negligence. Problem with
the roof, but D not informed. P replaced the roof at a $8k cost. Later, they
discovered the lease provision and requested D reimburse for the roof replacement.
D refused, saying that they did not receive any notice of the problem with the
roof or that it had been replaced until after it was all done, so they never had
an opportunity to handle the problem. Also, there was no way to tell any longer
who, if anyone, was negligent, and if this caused the problem with the roof.
Trial court said P breached the lease b/c they did not give any notice, but
awarded P $5k b/c D was unjustly enriched. P appeals, alleging that K was not
breached b/c lease did not say they needed to notify D.
Notes
• Without notice, they can't come and see the roof.
○ Don’t know who is negligent
○ Existing roof still under warranty
• Does it matter that this is an implied condition? Does it have same status as an
express condition?
○ The implied condition is treated as explicit
• Quasi k argument no good - if you have a K, then you can't also have quasi-K,
since this is used in the absence of a K