LOSAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
BAYVIEW ASSOCIATES, INC., 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.
Summary judgment for landlord was improper because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the scope of a non-compete clause in the lease and whether the tenant actually breached it.
Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the interpretation of a lease's non-compete provision and whether the tenant breached it.
[1] Summary judgment is improper when genuine issues of material fact exist regarding the interpretation of a lease provision and the tenant's compliance with it.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLosal Corporation leased commercial premises at the Dupont Plaza Hotel from Bayview Associates, Inc. The lease prohibited the lessee from selling prod…
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 Lease Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The plaintiff Losal Corporation appeals an adverse final summary judgment in an action for specific performance, declaratory judgment, injunctive and other relief filed against its landlord, the defendant Bayview Associates, Inc., as the owner and operator of the Dupont Plaza Hotel in Miami, Florida. The plaintiff was locked out of his leased commercial premises at the Dupont Plaza Hotel by the defendant because the plaintiff allegedly breached a material provision of the applicable lease agreement between the parties providing that the lessee plaintiff could not sell products “in competition with existing tenants” at the hotel.
Our review of the record reveals that summary judgment was improperly granted by the trial court because there were genuine issues of material fact as to (1) whether the lease agreement between the parties prohibiting the lessee plaintiff from selling “products in competition with other tenants” refers to products in the same generic classification or more narrowly to products which are identical, and (2) whether the plaintiff did in fact sell such products as thus prohibited by the lease. Holl v. Talcott, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla.1966). See Storz Broadcasting Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965); Norwood Shopping Center, Inc. v. MKR Corp., 135 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961).
The judgment appealed from is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Gory Roofing Tile Mfg., Inc. v. Davison, 191 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1966)
- Storz Broad. Co. v. Courtney, 178 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Norwood Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. MKR Corp., 135 So. 2d 448 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)