Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law 9th Edition by Arnold Goldman ,William Sigismond

Exercise 3

Facts
Clare, who worked for a computer company in Chicago, lived in a rental apartment under a two-year lease agreement. Six months into the lease she was offered a higher level position with the same company but would need to move to New York City. Through a notice in Facebook she rented the apartment for the remaining time under her current lease to Tom, who agreed to the same monthly rent, restrictions, and amenities. Tom lived in the apartment for six months and then lost his job. When he stopped paying the rent, he was evicted by the landlord. Unable to find a suitable tenant, the landlord sued Clare for rental payments on the remaining lease time.
At Trial
Clare claimed that she was no longer responsible for any rent due since Tom had agreed to "take over the lease." The judge, however, stated that the law doesn't work that way and ruled that it was still her obligation to pay the remaining rent due even though Tom agreed to assume her lease obligations. The judge further explained to her that the lease was a contract between the landlord and her, and consequently she had primary liability from the day the lease was signed for payment regardless of whether or not Tom had agreed to pay. Clare angrily responded to the judge's explanation by insisting that Tom pay because he promised to carry out the terms of the lease.
Questions
1. I s Clare responsible for the unpaid rent as the judge ruled in his decision?
2. What rule of law is the basis for the judge's ruling?
3. Does Tom have any responsibility for the rent that is due, or is he "off the hook?"