The Case of Horn Ventures International Inc

The case of Horn Ventures International Inc. v. Horn Plastics Inc. involved ta lease that required the tenant to leave the premises clean and in good repair. Instead, the defendant removed equipment not included in the agreement and damaged the premises in the process. What was the result?

A) The Court determined that the premises had been left in better condition than they were when the tenant took possession, and hence there was no award of damages.
B) The Court determined that the premises had to be left in the same condition they were when the tenant took possession, except for normal wear and tear, and there was an award for damages and lost income.
C) The conduct of the landlord resulted in a forfeiture of the lease, so no damages were payable.
D) The tenants had been evicted without cause, and so the landlord was required to pay damages on the counterclaim.
E) The Court determined that the premises had to be left in the same condition they were when the tenant took possession, except for normal wear and tear and there was an award for only damages.