romasanta v. mitten \"There is only minimal delay in giving notice, the harm to the lessor is slight, and the hardship to the lessee is severe.\" Abbe, Judge A landlord leased a motel he owned to lessees for a tenyear period. The lessees had an option to extend the lease for an additional ten years. To do so, they had to give written notice to the landlord three months before the rst ten-year lease expired. For almost ten years, the lessees devoted most of their assets and a great deal of their energy to building up the business. During this time, they transformed a disheveled, unrated motel into an AAA three-star operation. With the landlord's knowledge, the lessees made extensive longterm improvements that greatly increased the value of both the property and the business. Prior to three months before the end of the lease, the lessees told the landlord orally that they intended to extend the lease. The lessees instructed their accountant to give the landlord written notice of the option to extend the lease for another ten years. Despite reminders from the lessees, the accountant failed to give the written notice within three months of the expiration of the lease. As soon as they discovered the mistake, the lessees personally delivered a written notice of renewal of the option to the landlord, thirteen days too late. The landlord rejected it as late and instituted a lawsuit to evict the lessees. The trial and appellate courts held in favor of the lessees. They rejected the landlord's argument for strict adherence to the deadline for giving written notice of renewal of the lease. Instead, the courts granted equitable relief and permitted the late renewal notice. The court reasoned that \"there is only minimal delay in giving notice, the harm to the lessor is slight, and the hardship to the lessee is severe." Romasanta v. Mitton, 189 Cali-lppd 1026, 234 lCalptr. 729, Web 1987 Calhpp. Lexis 1428 _[_'Court of appeal of lCalifornia! Please summarize, in your own words, the facts and the decision of the court in the case mentioned below: +13 W V. m case, available on p. 212, Cheeseman, Contemporary Business Law, 8th ed. Your homework should include, especially, the following: I the nature of and the parties to the contract I the facts that underlie the dispute I a summary,r of the respective arguments of the Plaintiff and the Defendant I the decision and reasoning of the Courts 1" Please, do not exceed half a page. 1/ Please, submit your homework through m the link for Homework 1 under your own section For your reference, please nd below the text of the case