Case Study: Gamesa Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center - Contract Law Issues

This case study examines the legal dispute between Gamesa Energy USA and Ten Penn Center, focusing on a breach of contract related to a lease agreement. Gamesa Energy USA, as the claimant, alleged that Ten Penn Center violated the contract by not responding to a subletting request within the stipulated timeframe and by accepting rent payments despite the claimant vacating the property. The court ruled in favor of Gamesa Energy USA, stating that Ten Penn Center had waived its rights by continuing to accept rent and that their agents had implicitly consented to the claimant's move. The analysis emphasizes the importance of adhering to contractual terms, the concept of waiver, and the rules of agency in business law. Desklib provides access to similar solved assignments and past papers for students.

Running Head: LAW
Law
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note

1LAW
The case which has been selected for the purpose of this assignment is the case of Gamesa
Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 270. The case is in relation to
breach of contract.
Law in a business environment:
The presence of lay in relation to a business environment is critical for the purpose of successful
carrying out of business transactions. In the given situation the law provides rights and duties to
those parties who are involved in business transactions. In addition the law sets out fines and
penalties which a party may be subjected to in relation to breach of law. Further the law in terms
of business act as a guideline for parties on which they can base their transactions and ensure
good and ethical practices in business. Where business law is not present there would be a chaos
created in relation to the rights and obligations of parties involves and businesses would not be
able to operate effectively.
Identify the parties who are before the court.
The parties who are a part of this legal case are both incorporated companies. The claimant by
whom the claim in relation to this case has been filed is Gamesa Energy USA. On the other hand
the party who is defending the claim made by the claimant is Ten Penn Center hereby addressed
as the defendants.
A brief background of the problem

2LAW
In the given situation the claimant had rented a property which is owned by the defendant. The
rent was based on a lease agreement which was about to come to be concluded on September 1
2018. The lease had a term according to which the claimants were entitled to receive an amount
as “improvement allowance” which they had the right to use for the purpose of customizing the
property based on their needs. In addition rights had been provided to the claimant through the
lease agreement whereby that had the option of subletting the property. Although the right was
subjected to obtaining consent from the defendant the defendant count not unreasonably deny the
right to the plaintiff and had not notify their decision to the claimant within a fixed period of
time which was 30 days from the day the requires is made.
After leasing the property for many years the claimant came to a decision that they want to sublet
the property to another company Viridity Energy who is hereby referred to as the third party. The
subletting had been approved by the defendant. The defendant wanted to relocate to a different
premise due to business needs and had notified about the same to the defendant. They also
notified that they will not stop the payment of rent to the defendant and are in search of another
subtenant. The claimant had been further assisted by the agents of the defendants in the process
of moving out. The claimant further proposed the defendant that they want to sublet the property
to a new party. However the defendant did not respond to the request of the plaintiff and further
they were informed that as they had moved out of the property without the permission of the
defendant they have contravened the lease agreement and are no longer entitled to the
“improvement allowance”.
Identify the specific disagreement between the parties.

3LAW
The specific disagreement between the parties was that the claimant made a claim for the breach
of contract done by the defendant and the defendant argued that the contract had been actually
breached through the actions of the claimant as they moved out of the property without
permission and against the lease agreement.
The ruling of the court
The court had made a ruling in favor of the claimant in this case. It was held by the court that it
is actually the defendants who have violated the terms of the contract by continuing to accept
rent payment by the claimant and not proving notice related to the permission of subletting
within the stipulated period of 30 days which had been provided by the claimant.
Evaluate key judicial concepts that influence the decisions related to business:
In this case the court relied on the judicial concept that the defendant had acted in a malicious
manner as they continued to accept the rent from the plaintiff even when they had left the
property without the permission of the defendant (Knapp, Crystal & Prince, 2016). The
defendant had waived its rights under contract by continuing to accept the payment. Further the
court relied on the rules of agency as the agents of the defendant had themselves assisted the
claimant to move out of the property. This signifies that consent had been provided by the
defendant in relation to moving out of the property by the plaintiffs (Smits, 2017).
There were no dissenting judges in this case.
Do you agree with the court's decision? Why or why not?
Yes I completely agree with the decision provided by the court. It is completely evident in this
case that the defendant had acted in a malicious manner by continuing to accept rent payment by

4LAW
the claimant and not proving notice related to the permission of subletting within the stipulated
period of 30 days which had been provided by the claimant. The claimant had done an act which
could be considered as a breach of contract as they moved out without the permission of the
defendant. However the right against such breach had been waived as the defendant continued to
accept rent form the claimant.

5LAW
Gamesa Energy USA v. Ten Penn Center, 2016 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 270
Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M., & Prince, H. G. (2016). Problems in Contract Law: cases and
materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Smits, J. M. (Ed.). (2017). Contract law: a comparative introduction. Edward Elgar Publishing.