THE PARKLEIGH HOUSE, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
FAYE WAHL, D/B/A PARKLEIGH HOUSE DELICACIES, AND MAX BOHER, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A tenant sought enforcement of an alleged oral agreement granting exclusive rights to sell food and delicacies at leased premises, which was not included in the written lease. The appellate court reversed the trial court's decree that had enjoined the landlord from competing uses, holding that oral agreements cannot vary the terms of a written lease.
Oral agreements as to the terms of a lease of land cannot vary the terms of the lease as subsequently reduced to writing. The trial court erred in enforcing the alleged oral agreement to add a restrictive covenant to the written lease when the tenant failed to allege and the chancellor did not find facts constituting fraud, deception, mistake, or overreaching.
“Verbal agreements as to the terms of a lease of lands cannot vary the terms of the lease as subsequently reduced to writing.”
Establishes the core legal principle that oral agreements cannot modify written lease terms
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe tenant, Faye Wahl, operated a business at leased premises called Parkleigh House. Prior to executing a written lease, the tenant testified that th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Restrictive Covenants cases and more on FLexlaw
PEARSON, Judge.
The appellee brought an action in equity against the appellant (her landlord) and others for a decree declaring her rights under a lease. As additional relief the plaintiff prayed for an injunction against the landlord and others to prevent the defendants from violating an alleged exclusive right of the plaintiff to sell “delicacies and food for consumption on the premises or otherwise.”
The additional relief prayed was based entirely upon oral promises which the tenant testified were made prior to the entry by the parties into the written lease. The Chancellor found that the court could not re-write the lease between the parties but that “in equity” the oral agreement should be enforced, even though it was not in any way included in the written document. From a final decree enjoining the landlord from renting an adjacent store room for the sale of food and foodstuffs to be prepared and consumed on the premises or otherwise during the term of plaintiff’s lease, the defendant-landlord appeals. The effect of the decree was to add a restrictive covenant to the lease preventing the leasing of any of the remaining portions of the premises for a business activity which would in any way compete with the plaintiff. The plaintiff failed to allege facts constituting fraud, deception, mistake or overreaching. The Chancellor did not find any of these grounds for reformation to have been established. Verbal agreements as to the terms of a lease of lands cannot vary the terms of the lease as subsequently reduced to writing. Fletcher v. Moriarty, 62 Fla. 482, 56 So. 437; Camichos v. Diana Stores Corporation, 157 Fla. 349, 25 So. 2d 864; Schwartz v. Zaconick, Fla.1953, 68 So. 2d 173; Bell Corp. v. Bahama Bar & Restaurant, Inc., Fla.1954, 74 So. 2d 292; Stockton Dry Goods Co. v. Girsh, 36 Cal.2d 677, 227 P. 2d 1, 22 A.L.R.2d 1460.
Reversed.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and HORTON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J. C. Penney Co., Inc. v. Koff, 345 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)…al, Ltd. v. Huskey Realty, Fla.App., 325 So. 2d 34; Black v. Clifton, Fla.App., 284 So. 2d 465; Graham v. Graham, Fla.App., 277 So. 2d 540; Hamilton Construction Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, Fla., 65 So. 2d 729; Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Wahl, 97 So. 2d 714. The above stated cases taken together adhere to the principle that the courts are allowed to consider extrinsic evidence only when confronting an ambiguous contract provision, and they are barred from using evidence to create an ambiguity to rewrit…
-
Int'l Expositions, Inc. v. City OF Miami Beach, 274 So. 2d 29 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)…d may not substitute their judgment for that of the parties in order to relieve one from an alleged hardship of an [*31] improvident bargain. Home Development Co. v. Bursam, Fla.1965, 178 So. 2d 113; The Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Wahl, Fla. App.1957, 97 So. 2d 714. In the case of The Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Wahl, supra, a lessee sought a declaratory decree and an injunction in equity to prevent the lessor from leasing its remaining premises to another business which would compete with lessee’s food business…
-
Fontainebleau Hotel Corp. v. Kaplan, 108 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…d a result different from that which arose, nevertheless, we are not at liberty to read into the lease by implication a restrictive covenant not otherwise contained in the language of the instrument. See Parkleigh House, Inc. v. Wahl, Fla.App. 1957, 97 So. 2d 714 and cases cited therein. The appellee relies heavily upon Belvedere Hotel Co. v. Williams, 137 Md. 665, 113 A. 335, 14 A.L.R. 622, as authority for the proposition that a restrictive covenant may be implied from the language used in the instrument o…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Camichos v. Diana Stores Corp., 157 Fla. 349 (Fla. 1946)
- Schwartz v. Zaconick, 68 So. 2d 173 (Fla. 1953)
- Bell Corp. v. Bahama BAR & Rest., Inc., 74 So. 2d 292 (Fla. 1954)
- Fletcher v. Moriarty, 62 Fla. 482 (Fla. 1911)