APEX-Agents · Law
World434_JS_03
APEX-Agents task World434_JS_03 in AI Agents for Privacy and GDPR Compliance. Compare dual-harness agent runs across models — rubric criteria, scores, and public traces.
Task prompt
What the agent was asked to do
During acquisition diligence, Apex Storage Asia Pte. Ltd. (the "Landlord") notifies of a claim it has just received from a tenant. The Landlord has a lease for part of one of its Singapore properties (the "Premises") with We Love Bicycles, Inc. (the "Tenant"). The Premises consists of three floors. The Tenant has a four-year lease agreement for the Premises uses the first floor of the Premises as a bike shop and the second and third floors as rentable bike storage units. One month after entering into the lease agreement, the Tenant was informed by Singapore authorities that the second and third floors of the Premises were unlawfully constructed and cannot be used. The lease agreement does not warrant that the second and third floors of the Premises were lawfully constructed. The Tenant immediately sued for breach of contract requesting damages and the right to terminate the lease. Determine whether the Tenant will be entitled to terminate the lease agreement. Provide an explanation to me right here, describing your view.
Published trajectories
Agent runs on this task
Curated dual-harness runs (parsed + original sandbox). Best scored run per model.
| Model | Harness | Score | Result | Links |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GPT-5.5showcase | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| fireworks models Kimi K2 | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3 Flash | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| Gemini 3.1 Pro | dual | 0/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 mini | dual | 3/3 | Pass | Share pagePublic trace |
| GPT-5.4 nano | dual | 0/3 | Fail | Share pagePublic trace |
Grading rubric
Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)
States there is an implied term of lawful use in the lease
PassEvidence: The response says the court would imply a landlord warranty that the floors were lawfully constructed, and concludes the Tenant has “a strong argument that the Landlord breached an implied term that the demised premises were lawfully constructed.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating an implied term of lawful use in the lease. This is clearly conveyed via implied term/warranty of lawful construction and lawful use. Pass.
States that the Landlord committed a repudiatory breach of the lease agreement
PassEvidence: The response states “For termination, Singapore law asks whether the breach is sufficiently serious,” and in the bottom line says “the breach is repudiatory because the authorities have barred use of the second and third floors.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the Landlord committed a repudiatory breach of the lease agreement. The response expressly calls the breach repudiatory and attributes it to the Landlord’s breach of the implied term. Pass.
States that the Tenant will be entitled to terminate the lease agreement
PassEvidence: The opening states “the Tenant is likely entitled to terminate the lease,” and the bottom line says “On the facts given, the Tenant is likely entitled to terminate the lease and claim damages.” Assessment: The criterion requires stating that the Tenant will be entitled to terminate the lease agreement. The response clearly states this conclusion, with reasonable legal qualifications. Pass.