Reference no: EM133281795

Case:

Stella rented an office in Frank's office building. Stella loved the location and the office. But the tenant in the neighboring office, Pete would frequently pile food garbage outside his door. Stella worried that clients visiting her office would find the food garbage objectionable and that this would impact their impression of Stella's professionalism. Stella complained to Pete, but he said the windows in his office didn't open, the ventilation wasn't strong enough to clear the food smell, and the garbage chute was too far away, on the other side of the hallway, so he had no choice but to put the garbage outside his door. Stella complained to Frank, and Frank explained that all tenant leases prohibited putting any items, including garbage, in the common hallways, and also had a garbage policy, requiring all garbage to be put in the chute, or bagged and taken to the dumpster in the parking garage. Stella pointed out that the policy was clear, but that Pete wasn't following it.

Frank shrugged, and said, 'What are you going to do? Some people have no manners.' Stella went to Pete again, and offered him $500 per year, starting tomorrow, to stop leaving garbage outside his office unit.

Pete agreed, and they shook hands to seal the deal. A year later, when Pete approached Stella to collect, Stella refused to pay. The electricity in Frank's building began to fail, sometimes for a few minutes, sometimes for as much as an hour. Frank had a scheduled trip outside the city, so before leaving, he verbally agreed with Edna, an electrician, to resolve the problem promptly in return for $700. Frank told Edna that he would be unreachable during his travel, and that he would pay for Edna's services once he returned. Edna looked for the source of the electricity problem for two days, but, despite her best efforts, could not find it. Edna decided to look for a more experienced electrician, and entered into a written and signed contract with Bell, a more skilled electrician, to find and resolve the problem in return for $500. When Bell found the source of the electricity problem, she noticed that there was also a water leak next to the main fuse box.

A water leak so close to a major fuse box was extremely dangerous; knowing this, Bell tried to inform Edna of the need to fix both problems immediately, but Edna was not answering her phone. Bell decided to fix both problems to prevent harm to the occupants or damage to the infrastructure of the building. When Frank returned, Edna informed him that she had to hire Bell to fix the electricity problem and that Bell fixed a water leak as well. Edna asked for a payment of $700 for the electrical repair, and Bell asked for a payment of $600 for fixing the water leak.

Frank refused to pay anything, arguing that Edna had no right to hire another electrician to fix the problem without his permission and that he had never agreed to have the water leak problem fixed at all. Frank also noted that the average market price for fixing a water leak of the type that occurred in his building was only $400.

Question: Discuss, using the IRAC method, all the lawsuits that could result from the above set of facts, and whether or not you think they will be successful. (If there is more than one IRAC please mention them as Issue 1 / Rule 1/ Application 1/ Conclusion 1/ Issue 2/ Rule 2/ Application 2/ Conclusion 2/ etc...)