Also known as: surrendered the premises · surrendering the premises · surrender
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A tenant's voluntary relinquishment of possession and control of leased property to the landlord. Acceptance by the landlord terminates the lease and limits the tenant's liability to rent accrued before acceptance plus any damage from the abandonment.
Scott Summers, a commercial tenant, offered to return the keys and vacate the warehouse early. In exchange the landlord demanded that Scott release a pending repair claim. The landlord later argued the release supplied consideration for accepting the early surrender. Because the claim was not doubtful, the release did not constitute consideration under the governing rule.
Sophia Singh leased a retail space under a covenant to surrender the premises in good condition. A fire destroyed the building through no fault of Sophia. The landlord demanded that Sophia pay to rebuild before accepting surrender. The lease contained no express rebuilding obligation, so Sophia was not required to restore the structure.
Sasha Stone stopped paying rent and removed all personal property from the apartment. The landlord received the keys and changed the locks without notifying Sasha of any intent to relet. By accepting the offer of surrender inherent in the abandonment, the landlord terminated the lease and left Sasha liable only for accrued rent and abandonment damage.
Spencer Silver rented specialized machinery under a lease that required return at term end. After the term expired, Spencer refused to surrender the equipment despite the landlord's demand. The refusal constituted conversion because Spencer intentionally retained dominion over the chattel.
Selena Singh held a written lease for office space. She delivered the original lease document to the landlord with a clear statement that she intended to end all obligations. The delivery discharged the landlord's duty to provide possession without any additional consideration.
Stephen Shaw, a hotel employee, was told he must waive his Fifth Amendment protection and testify about wage practices or lose his job. The employer framed the demand as a condition for continued employment after a labor dispute. Conditioning the job on surrender of the privilege violated the Constitution.
In 1913 the State of Washington enacted a statute entitled An Act to establish a minimum wage for women and minors. The law created an Industrial Welfare Commission. A later statute transferred its duties to an Industrial Welfare Committee consisting of the Director of Labor and Industries, the Supervisor of Industrial Insurance, the Supervisor of Industrial Relations, the Industrial Statistician and the Supervisor of Women in Industry. The statute required the commission to investigate wages and conditions of labor for women and minors. It required public hearings. When wages were found inadequate to supply the necessary cost of living and maintain workers in health, the commission was to convene conferences of employers, employees and public representatives before issuing obligatory orders fixing minimum wages. Special licenses were authorized for physically defective or apprentice workers at lower rates. The statute had remained in force for more than twenty-three years by the time of the present litigation. Elsie Parrish was employed by the West Coast Hotel Company as a chambermaid. She and her husband brought suit against the company to recover the difference between the wages actually paid and the minimum wage. The minimum wage was $14.50 per week of 48 hours fixed by the Industrial Welfare Committee pursuant to the statute. The company had paid her less than the prescribed minimum during her employment. The Supreme Court of Washington reversed the trial court judgment, sustained the statute, and directed entry of judgment for the plaintiffs. The West Coast Hotel Company appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The appeal brought before the Court the question of the constitutional validity of the Washington minimum wage statute. The Washington law was substantially identical to minimum wage statutes enacted in Oregon in the same year. Similar laws had been adopted in the District of Columbia in 1918 and in other states during the same period.
View caseThe landlord must manifest acceptance of the tenant's offer to relinquish possession. Acceptance terminates the lease and caps the tenant's liability at rent accrued before acceptance plus damage caused by the abandonment.
No. Absent express language requiring the tenant to rebuild after casualty, the covenant is not construed to impose that duty. The tenant may surrender the premises without liability for reconstruction costs.
Surrender of a claim supplies consideration only if the claim is doubtful because of factual or legal uncertainty or if the surrendering party reasonably believes the claim may be valid. An undisputed legal duty provides no consideration.
…Amendment in its Self-Incrimination Clause enables the citizen to create a zone of privacy which government may not force him to surrender to his detriment. The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The…