Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
Helsingin HO 19.02.1986 208 AI generated

Tenant's claim for future rent and relocation costs dismissed due to lack of specific damage proof.

Case Number Helsingin HO 19.02.1986 208
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Finland (FI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The court dismissed the tenant's claim for future rent, relocation costs, and lost wages after the landlord sold the property. Although the tenant was obligated to vacate, the landlord had not moved in, and the tenant failed to provide specific evidence for the claimed damages. Consequently, the court awarded only nominal amounts for moving expenses and unspecified loss, rejecting the broader financial demands.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

S. 10 of the Tenants' Protection Act; where a tenant claims damages for future rent and relocation costs after a landlord sells the property without moving in, the court requires specific proof of the damage amount and will not award speculative future losses.

Keywords

AI generated
tenant protection act property sale damages calculation relocation costs future rent claim specific evidence requirement nominal damages award

Cited Legislation

AI generated
S. 10 of the Tenants' Protection Act
AI generated
appeal_1977_helsinki__36
Tenant compensation claim for unauthorized use of landlord's apartment during construction period upheld by court.
kko-precedent_1994_40
Supreme Court allows tenant to recover damages for business competition and breach of good faith in lease termination.
appeal_1984_helsinki__226
Landlord's failure to occupy rented unit after termination prevents tenant from claiming damages for loss of housing.
kko-precedent_1999_41
Supreme Court rejects reduction of damages due to defendant's intentional tort and future earning potential.
kko-precedent_2003_67
Supreme Court allows reduced damages for intentional injury due to victim provocation and defendant's financial hardship.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

A oli irtisanonut asuinhuoneiston vuokrasopimuksen ilmoittaen tarvitsevansa huoneiston poikansa C:n käyttöön asuntona. Vuokralainen B oli velvoitettu muuttamaan huoneistosta. C ei ollut kuitenkaan muuttanut huoneistoon, vaan A oli alkanut myydä huoneistoa. B vaati A:lta korvausta kohonneista vuokra- ja matkakustannuksista neljän vuoden ajalta eteenpäin, muuttokustannuksista ja muuton aiheuttamasta työajan menetyksestä sekä uudesta puhelinliittymästä yhteensä 48.768 mk. Kun vahinko ei ollut tarkemmin määriteltävissä, A velvoitettiin korvaamaan B:n muuttokustannukset 1.800 mk ja muu yksilöimätön vahinko 2.200 mk:lla.

Läsnä: Mäki, Vihuri (apuj.), Nikolainen (apuj.),

Pohjola (asiant.) ja Kaarni (asiant., erim.) Esittelijä: Koskimies

Lainvoimainen