Kang v. Harrington
Hawaii Supreme Court
587 P.2d 285 (1978)

- Written by Rich Walter, JD
Facts
Dolly Won lived next door to her father, Lawrence Kang (plaintiff). Acting as Kang’s agent, Won agreed to rent Kang’s property to W. Dewey Harrington (defendant) for one year, with an option to renew the lease for a second year. Harrington drew up the letter of agreement, which correctly restated the terms to which he and Wong had agreed, except that it incorrectly referred to Won’s street address rather that Kang’s address. Won signed in haste, without noticing the error. Harrington then prepared the lease contract, which correctly referred to Kang’s property, and gave it to Won for her signature. Harrington said he was in a hurry, so once again Won signed in haste, this time without noticing that the contract gave Harrington an option to renew the lease in perpetuity. Harrington then took occupancy and made many more extensive improvements to the property than he and Won had previously discussed. Harrington later revealed his intention to exercise the perpetual-renewal option. Kang sued Harrington for fraud. The trial court found that (1) Harrington’s letter of agreement fraudulently misstated the property’s address so that he could later disclaim the agreed-upon one-year renewal option, (2) Harrington hurried Won into signing the lease contract so that she would not notice the perpetual-renewal option, and (3) Harrington deliberately undertook extensive improvements to bolster his claim to a long-term lease on the property. The trial court entered judgment for Kang and awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. Harrington appealed to the Hawaii Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Richardson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.