This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D rented a one-family house from P pursuant to a written lease. Despite a notice to vacate, D continued in possession for approximately six and a half months after the expiration of the term of the lease. D moved out, and P sued him, seeking compensation for damage which the tenant had allegedly caused to the property, twice the monthly rent pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:42-6 for the period during which he had remained in the house after the expiration of his lease, and an attorney's fee. D counterclaimed for specific performance or damages. D claimed a breach of his option to purchase the property, and he sought damages for the breach and compensation for the amount by P had been unjustly enriched as the result of improvements made by the D to the property in anticipation of his acquiring it under what he believed was his purchase option. The jury returned a verdict awarding D $13,000 as the reasonable value of improvements. The jury rejected P's claims for D's possession beyond the term of his lease or that the premises had been injured by D's neglect. The jury found that P had not breached his contractual obligation to sell the property to D. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.