임차물의 원상회복

Abstract

The lessee should perform certain restorative and reparative work at the end of the lease period as good as a condition it had been in the beginning of the contract. The amount and the nature of the restoration work may involve destruction of a substantially completed building or other structure in accordance with the contract. Specific performance, including the remedying of a defective performance and/or for damages is the right of the lessor. The right to special performance is irrelevant to the right to damages. But the lessor may ordinarily follow the claim for damages because of the inefficiency and inconvenience of specific performance. The purpose of damage may put the lessor in as good as a condition he would have been in had the contract been performed. It compensates the difference with and without performance, the diminution in the value to him resulting from the failure to render remedial work. The damage for the diminution in the value to him may compensate for the lessor's actual loss, not the diminution in the market price of the property caused by the breach. The cost of cure is the proper damage in the failure of restoration work. The lessee could not have the right of use and reap the benefit from the contract without the consent of the lessor. The cost of cure is usually less than or equal to the diminution in the market price before restoration work. However, in cases the work to be required by the contract may become useless after its return for use, it may be vexatious to compel to stick to it. And if the cost of cure would be clearly disproportionate to the lessor's benefits attained, such an award will not be made. A ordinary property owner will not pay the cost upon his property more than the benefits to him from a practical standpoint. The primary purpose of the lease contract between the parties is merely to accomplish to economic recovery and the provisions of the lease contract pertaining to remedial work were incidental to the main object involved. There,completion of the work as contracted would be unreasonable and unrealistic. That is true, damages are limited to the difference in the market value with and without the promised restoration work. It may usually be it easier to prove the cost of cure, but the lessor should not attained the improvement of the reparation work. Besides, it may be impossible to prove the market value of the property because of the market's deficiency. In such a case, if there is a reasonable alternative to loss in value, he may claim damages based on that alternative, and in the determining the amount of damages, the court may award damage at liberty by means of alternative bases within a reasonable discretion.