Alexi-adamov-v-corliss-jackson -

Jackson also filed a counterclaim for conversion, alleging that Adamov had installed proprietary cooling equipment that violated the lease’s "No Structural Alterations Without Consent" clause. Jackson demanded the equipment be removed at Adamov’s expense—roughly $47,000 in restoration costs.

: It is important to distinguish this from unrelated major cases such as Adamov v. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (a 2019 employment case in California) or the famous English tort law case Miller v. Jackson . Summary of Available Media alexi-adamov-v-corliss-jackson

In commercial leases involving technology operations, courts now look to a "reasonable restoration period." While not a statute, the Adamov case created a persuasive benchmark: a tenant has approximately 12 hours to remedy a Force Majeure-related outage before liability attaches. Jackson also filed a counterclaim for conversion, alleging

Jackson received $189,000. Adamov saved $47,000. Both sides claimed victory. Jackson received $189,000

: It is possible the names were paired accidentally or refer to very recent, non-indexed litigation.

Before Adamov , the law on trade fixtures was defined by 19th-century cases involving printing presses and bakery ovens. This case updated the doctrine for the 21st century: permanently affixed computer hardware that serves a tenant’s unique business model may qualify as removable personal property, not real estate.