Agreed Compensation Compared to other Compensation
An injured party can be reimbursed by the offending party for various reasons. A tenant who does not vacate the apartment on the date agreed in the contract is exposed to claims by the landlord, whether by virtue of a breach of the tenancy agreement or by virtue of the Contracts Act, whether by virtue of the Wealth Making Act and not in law or by tort law.
The law states that: “At the end of the lease term the lessee shall return to the lessor the lessee, when he is free from any person or property, except the property of the lessor used by the lessee.”
And section 10 of the Contracts (Remedies) Act provides: “The injured party is entitled to compensation for the damage caused to him as a result of the breach and its consequences and which the violator saw or had to foresee, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, as a probable result of the breach.”
The landlord will file a claim for eviction of the tenant, and in addition can file against him monetary claims on various grounds of breach of contract, making wealth, and a tort claim.
At the same time, it should be noted that for the most part, the plaintiff cannot receive ‘cumulative’ compensation for each case individually.
In other words, the plaintiff would compare any ground to the amount the tenant would have paid the landlord for a similar use of the property on the basis of free negotiation, we would have received a proper rent. Unless the plaintiff is able to prove that he was further harmed.
Or if he succeeds in proving that the defendant enjoys beyond proper rent.
A court must determine whether the compensation due to the landlord is cumulative or overlapping compensation.
Receiving one remedy does not in essence contradict receiving another remedy. Combining the remedies together does not result in unreasonable enrichment on the part of the plaintiff.
In contrast, agreed compensation is compensation that the parties determine in advance that it will be paid by a party who violates the provisions of the lease.
The agreed compensation will always be a high and deterrent amount, and the parties to the lease agreement that it reflects the damage that may be caused to one party as a result of the breach of the other party’s contract. In our case, we assume that this is compensation for double the rent in case the tenant does not vacate the apartment on time.
And in such a case, the landlord will have to prove in court only that the tenant has breached the contract and will not be required to prove the damage caused to him.