WHITE STAR REALTY CO., A CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
EMANUEL M. SCHREIBER, APPELLEE
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 shopping center landlord appealed a trial court's grant of an injunction preventing it from leasing space to a business competing with an existing tenant. The court held that lease language restricting the tenant's business to specific products implicitly obligated the landlord not to lease space for competing businesses.
The court affirmed the injunction, holding that paragraph 22 of the lease imposed reciprocal obligations: on the tenant to sell only the enumerated products and nothing competing with other tenants, and on the landlord not to install competing businesses in the shopping center.
“The court concluded as a matter of law that this paragraph was an agreement imposing 'reciprocal obligations; on the tenant to sell in conformity therewith, and on the landlord not to install the Plaintiff tenant's competition in the center.' We agree with this conclusion.”
Establishes the core holding that the lease language created mutual obligations on both parties regarding competitive businesses.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWhite Star Realty owned a neighborhood shopping center and leased space to Schreiber, who operated a retail business selling juices, souvenirs, gifts,…
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 Injunction cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant, defendant in the trial court, urges on this appeal that the court misinterpreted the legal effect of a lease. The appellant is the owner of a neighborhood shopping center and is appellee’s landlord. The complaint filed by the appellee tenant prayed for an injunction to prevent the landlord from leasing an adjacent store space for a business which would be in direct competition with the appellee. After trial the court entered the injunction prayed for and this appeal followed.
*301Paragraph 22 of the lease between the parties provided:
“Premises shall he used for the following purposes and no other: sale of fruit juices, souvenirs, handbags, greeting cards, sundries, film, beachwear, tobacco, newspapers and magazines, fruit shipping products, gifts and novelties, fruit salad, package icecream, bottled sodas, and candy; it being clearly the intent of the parties that the Tenant may sell no food other than that set out herein, and further, may sell nothing that competes with any other tenant in the building in which the demised premises are located.”
The court concluded as a matter of law that this paragraph was an agreement imposing “reciprocal obligations; on the tenant to sell in conformity therewith, and on the landlord not to install the Plaintiff tenant’s competition in the center.” We agree with this conclusion.
A court should give the terms of a contract a reasonable construction, a construction that will not give one party an unfair advantage over the other, and should avoid giving a construction that would lead to absurd results. James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., Fla.1953, 66 So.2d 62. As the trial court observed, if a competing business were permitted in a store adjacent to ap-pellee’s the appellee would be in violation of his lease by continuing his own business. Such an unreasonable and absurd result cannot have been the intention of the parties. The only interpretation of paragraph 22 that will accord with the principles stated in the James case is the reasonable interpretation made by the trial court.
We have examined all points the appellant has raised and concluded that they do not demonstrate reversible error.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bouden v. Walker, 266 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 2d DCA 1972)…fair construction most equitable to the parties, Hall v. Hardaker, 1911, 61 Fla. 267, 55 So. 977; James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., Fla.1953, 66 So. 2d 62; Wilcox v. Atkins, Fla.App.1968, 213 So. 2d 879; White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber, Fla.App.1969, 229 So. 2d 300. In the case sub judice, Bouden testified that the average freight charge on merchandise during the last few years was eight to ten per cent, and that she had the decorators pay five per cent and her shop paid the balance. Her intention was to split…
-
Gaetano Tusa v. Roffe, 791 So. 2d 512 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…nterpretation of the covenant’s language that would support its protective purpose is if Roffe was prohibited from leasing space to another restaurant that sold pizza in the same building as Tusa’s restaurant. See White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber, 229 So. 2d 300, 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)(holding courts should give the terms of a contract a reasonable construction that will not give one party an unfair advantage over the other or lead to absurd results). Because Roffe knew that KKA was selling pizza on the sa…
-
Grizzard v. Hess Oil Co., 33 Fla. Supp. 128 (Lake Cty. Cir. Ct. 1970)…; neither will this court so interpret a contract that one party will be given an unfair or unreasonable advantage over the other. See James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Supreme Court of Florida), and White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber, Fla. 229 So. 2d 300. The rent to be paid under order of this court must and shall be a reasonable one, based upon the evidence submitted to this court. The answer to the question of “what is the basis for determining the rent in this case” is — The basis for determin…
Authorities Cited
- James v. Gulf Life Ins. Co., 66 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1953)