Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Kang v. Harrington

587 P.2d 285 (1978)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 28,700+ case briefs...

Kang v. Harrington

Hawaii Supreme Court

587 P.2d 285 (1978)

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…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 545,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 28,700 briefs, keyed to 983 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 545,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 28,700 briefs - keyed to 983 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership