Dissatisfied. Knowing what you know would you have gone to this program? Yes No Not Sure
Dissatisfied. Xxxxxx elevated the case to the Supreme Court. **Issues:**
1. Whether the lease agreement contained a renewal clause obligating both parties to extend the lease beyond July 31, 1995.
2. Whether Xxxxxx was entitled to compensation for improvements made on the leased property.
3. Whether Xxxxxx had to pay Php 30,000/month for continued use of the property beyond the lease term. **Court’s Decision:**
1. Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx:** – The Supreme Court held that the clause “renewable upon agreement of the parties” necessitated mutual consent. There was no obligation for San Buenaventura to renew the lease without an agreement. Xxxxxx continuing to pay the old rate was not enough to sustain Xxxxxx’s claim for automatic renewal.
2. Entitlement to Reimbursement for Improvements:** – Xxxxxx was not considered a “builder in good faith” under Article 1678 of the Civil Code since he was aware that his tenure was only as long as his lease. Therefore, his right was limited to removing the improvements without significantly damaging the property since Xxx Xxxxxxxxxxxx opted not to compensate for the improvements.
3. Rental Rate for Continued Use:** – The Court found that the CA’s increase to Php 30,000/month lacked a factual basis. The Supreme Court reinstated the MeTC’s ruling of Php 15,000/month as sufficient compensation for the continued occupancy after the lease expired. **Doctrine:**
1. A contract stipulating “renewable upon agreement of the parties” requires mutual consent from both parties for renewal—the absence of which terminates the lease.
2. Lessees who make improvements on leased property do not qualify as builders in good faith and can’t demand full reimbursement unless the lessor appropriates the improvements.
3. Fair rental value must have a factual basis supported by evidence; courts cannot unilaterally increase rental amounts without proper justification.
Dissatisfied the Appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal. One of the issues for determination is Whether the lower Court was right when it held that the arbitrator had given sufficient reason for the application of the prevailing rate of exchange to the contract between the parties. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the rate of exchange of US $1: N4.2 did not apply to any of the payments due to the Respondent. He submitted that the arbitrator found that the Respondent is entitled to payment by reference to US Dollars and the reference exchange rate of US$1: N4.2 in the Agreement, is applicable in computing the value of services rendered by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was submitted that the Appellant has no grouse against that finding but has a grouse that having made that finding, the arbitrator failed to put it into effect and instead, went outside/beyond the scope of the Agreement of the parties to base his award on another exchange rate. Learned counsel further contended that it was the error of the arbitrator in basing his award on the prevailing exchange rate, that the Appellant sought to remedy at the lower Court unsuccessfully. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the rate of exchange of US $1: N4.2 did not apply to any of the payments due to the Respondent. He submitted that the arbitrator found that the Respondent is entitled to payment by reference to US Dollars and the reference exchange rate of US$1: N4.2 in the Agreement, is applicable in computing the value of services rendered by the Respondent to the Appellant. It was submitted that the Appellant has no grouse against that finding but has a grouse that having made that finding, the arbitrator failed to put it into effect and instead, went outside/beyond the scope of the Agreement of the parties to base his award on another exchange rate. Learned counsel further contended that it was the error of the arbitrator in basing his award on the prevailing exchange rate, that the Appellant sought to remedy at the lower Court unsuccessfully In resolving the issue, the appellate Court observed a provision in the agreement which states that: Any payments pursuant to this Agreement shall be subject to and always in accordance with all applicable Nigerian Laws including the Nigerian Banking Currency Exchange Laws and the Tax Laws of the Inland Revenue Department. Consequent upon which the award was made in favour of the Respondent. On this, the Court held that: Having regard to the Agreem...
Dissatisfied. Very Dissatisfied e. I have not used any family planning services f. I was not aware that I was enrolled in the Family Planning Waiver program (if selected, end survey)
Dissatisfied. Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied. “7. Very much dissatisfied.” : insulated : uninsulated Percentage Figure 4.4 Percentage of the response on the annoyance vs. WECPNL in relation to sound insulation.
1. Very annoying.” “
2. Pretty annoying.” The population are divided into two groups; those whose homes are sound insulated and those whose homes are not. Figure 4.4 illustrates the annoyance reaction rate of those answering the items “very annoying” and “pretty annoying” as a function of WECPNL. Due to the differences in the response rates found between around the two airfields, the response rates are shown as to Kadena Air Base only in this chapter. Solid circles in the fig- ure indicate rates of the population living in the homes sound insulated and open ones not insulated. The rates are adjusted for the different distributions of age and sex between the populations in the areas with different ranks of WECPNL. Surprisingly, the dose-response relationships for both populations manifest very good agreement throughout the range of the level of noise ex- posure. Reported annoyance, however, might not reflect the annoyance the residents experience inside their homes, although the question asks about the annoyance they experience while staying in the buildings. Doubt cannot be swept out completely, however, if they answered about the overall annoyance impression of the aircraft noise exposure regardless of outside or inside their homes.
