Background and Facts Frenchie's Hair Boutique sells hair extensions, clothing, and accessories. Rolande Christophe, the owner of Frenchie's, entered into a three-year commercial lease with Oxford Tower Apartments, LP, for a small storefront. Less than two years later, Oxford filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against Frenchie's and Christophe, alleging breach of contract and seeking unpaid rent. The defendants counterclaimed for damages. At the trial, Christophe testified that from the start of the lease, problems with the store, including a lack of heat in the building, interfered with her business. She complained to Oxford, to no avail. Fifteen months into the term, a pipe erupted, ooding the store with water and sewage. Frenchie's lost its inventory and was required to clear out so that the ooring could be replaced. Unable to reopen the store because of the lingering odor, Christophe stopped paying rent and gave Oxford the key. The court granted possession of the premises to Oxford and awarded damages for the loss of the inventory to Christophe. Oxford appealed, arguing that Christophe and Frenchie's were still obligated to pay the unpaid rent. In the Words of the Court In the Words of the Court Memorandum by BENDER, P.].E. [President Judge Emeritus '*' ] escort "' * "' Our appellate role * * * is to determine whether the findings of the trial court are supported by competent evidence * * * . We will reverse the trial court 0an if its findings of fact are not supported by competent evidence in the record. [Emphasis added.] * * " The trial court, as the nder of fact, is free to believe all, part or none of the evidence presented. issues of credibility and conicts in evidence are for the trial court to resolve; this Court is not permitted to reexamine the weight and credibility determination or substitute our judgment for that of the fact nder. [Emphasis added.] alcnknkt Here, Appellees presented testimony regarding numerous ongoing problems that hindered their ability to conduct business and that remained unremedied by Appellant, despite Appellees' frequent complaints. Appellant argues that * * * Appellees never surrendered the premises. However, the record clearly contradicts Appellant's claim. Ms. Christophe * * * was unable to [reopen her store] due to \"the foul odor Appellant argues that * * "' Appellees never surrendered the premises. However, the record clearly contradicts Appellant's claim. Ms. Christophe * * * was unable to [reopen her store] due to \"the foul odor of waste emanating from the oor." As a result, Ms. Christophe * * * surrendered the key to Appellant. Appellant "' * * asks this Court to reassess the credibility of the witnesses. However, it is well settled that we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the trier of fact. The trial court was free to believe certain witnesses and to disbelieve the testimony of other witnesses, as the trier of fact has the unique opportunity to see and hear subtleties of answers and movements of witnesses and parties not viewable from the cold record. The trial court concluded that the evidence presented supported a finding in favor of Appellees. We deem the trial court's determination to be well-supported by the record. Decision and Remedy A state intermediate appellate court affirmed the lower court's order. Oxford retained possession of the premises, and Christophe and Frenchie's obtained damages for the cost of the lost inventory. Case 2.2 Oxford Tower Apartments, LP v. Frenchie's Hair Boutique Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2020 WL 119595 (2020). lakov Filimonow/Shutterstock.com Iakov Filimonov/ Shutterstock.com Background and Facts Frenchie's Hair Boutique sells hair extensions, clothing, and accessories. Rolande Christophe, the owner of Frenchie's, entered into a three-year commercial lease with Oxford Tower Apartments, LP, for a small storefront. Less than two years later, Oxford filed a suit in a Pennsylvania state court against Frenchie's and Christophe, alleging breach of contract and seeking unpaid rent. The defendants counterclaimed forl Discussion: We will discuss the ease summaries that are in the textbook (e.g., Case 20.], Simmons v. Smith from chapter 20}. As preparation for these discussions, you should read the ease excerpt, compare the topic to corresponding material in the text, and be prepared to answer basic questions about the case, such as: Who are the parties in this case? What went wrong why are they in court? What court is the opinion from is it a trial court or appellate court? What question did the court have to decide in this case? What facts did the court focus on in deciding the case? Your preparation is intended to make it possible for us to have discussion about the case. You do not need to master the topic covered by the ease. My expectation is that you be familiar enough with the material to be able to answer my questions as we work through the subject. If you are able to do this, you will have satised this part of the class participation requirement