Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

The Leasing Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
September 29, 2009

Implied Covenant of Good Faith

Failure to open a store was not a breach of the lease. Jefferson City Commons LLC v. Moran Foods Inc., 08 Civ. 4866, S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2009.

A Texas shopping center's operator sued a grocery store chain for breach of lease by failing to open a supermarket. Its amended complaint seeking base rent, additional rent, and attorneys' fees was expanded to include a claim for damages for rent and expenses lost from other tenants and diminution of the shopping center's value. Discussing lease ' 6.2, the court held that if liability is established, the plaintiff operator could recover only base rent, additional rent, and attorneys' fees. Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, ' 6.2 ' providing that the defendant had no obligation to open any business at the leased premises ' was not applicable solely in a situation in which a tenant later finds its business location unprofitable. In finding that the defendant's failure to open a grocery store did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court noted that the implied covenant is not breached where a party merely exercises rights afforded it under the lease agreement.

Premises Liability

A woman was awarded $4.4M in a fall that caused brain injury, Lopez v. Minyard Food Stores Inc., No. DC-07-0142, Dallas County District Court, 95th, TX, 06-26-2009.

In 2005, Liria Lopez, then 49, slipped on water that had accumulated near the entrance of a Minyard Food Store in Dallas, fracturing her right knee. In the following months, Lopez developed a movement disorder, experienced memory lapses and had troubles with concentration and speech. Almost two years later, she was diagnosed with a closed head injury, which her doctors claimed was caused by the incident. Due to the brain injury, Lopez is unable to work and had to move in with a relative because she needs constant care and supervision. Lopez alleged that she fell because the store failed to lay out mats or warn patrons of the water on the floor. A jury awarded her $4.4 million.

Implied Covenant of Good Faith

Failure to open a store was not a breach of the lease. Jefferson City Commons LLC v. Moran Foods Inc., 08 Civ. 4866, S.D.N.Y., May 21, 2009.

A Texas shopping center's operator sued a grocery store chain for breach of lease by failing to open a supermarket. Its amended complaint seeking base rent, additional rent, and attorneys' fees was expanded to include a claim for damages for rent and expenses lost from other tenants and diminution of the shopping center's value. Discussing lease ' 6.2, the court held that if liability is established, the plaintiff operator could recover only base rent, additional rent, and attorneys' fees. Contrary to the plaintiff's argument, ' 6.2 ' providing that the defendant had no obligation to open any business at the leased premises ' was not applicable solely in a situation in which a tenant later finds its business location unprofitable. In finding that the defendant's failure to open a grocery store did not breach the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the court noted that the implied covenant is not breached where a party merely exercises rights afforded it under the lease agreement.

Premises Liability

A woman was awarded $4.4M in a fall that caused brain injury, Lopez v. Minyard Food Stores Inc., No. DC-07-0142, Dallas County District Court, 95th, TX, 06-26-2009.

In 2005, Liria Lopez, then 49, slipped on water that had accumulated near the entrance of a Minyard Food Store in Dallas, fracturing her right knee. In the following months, Lopez developed a movement disorder, experienced memory lapses and had troubles with concentration and speech. Almost two years later, she was diagnosed with a closed head injury, which her doctors claimed was caused by the incident. Due to the brain injury, Lopez is unable to work and had to move in with a relative because she needs constant care and supervision. Lopez alleged that she fell because the store failed to lay out mats or warn patrons of the water on the floor. A jury awarded her $4.4 million.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

The Stranger to the Deed Rule Image

In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.