Keith Hardware, Inc. v. Douglas L. White and Carolyn L. White - Concurring

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJune 6, 1997
Docket03A01-9610-CH-00339
StatusPublished

This text of Keith Hardware, Inc. v. Douglas L. White and Carolyn L. White - Concurring (Keith Hardware, Inc. v. Douglas L. White and Carolyn L. White - Concurring) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Keith Hardware, Inc. v. Douglas L. White and Carolyn L. White - Concurring, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

EASTERN SECTI ON FILED June 6, 1997

Cecil Crowson, Jr. KEI TH HARDWARE, I NC. , ) C/ A NO. 03A01-Appellate C ourt Clerk 9610- CH- 00339 ) Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) WASHI NGTON CHANCERY ) v. ) HON. LEW S W M I . AY, ) CHANCELLOR DOUGLAS L. W TE a nd wi f e , HI ) CAROLYN L. W TE, HI ) ) De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s . ) REMANDED

M STANLEY GI VENS, ANDERSON, FUGATE, GI VENS, COUNTS & BELI SLE, . J o h n s on Ci t y, f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt .

J OHN S. TAYLOR, M KI NNON, FOW c LER, FOX & TAYLOR, J ohns on Ci t y , f o r De f e nda nt s - Appe l l e e s .

O P I N I O N

Fr a nks . J .

The i s s ue on t hi s i nt e r l oc ut or y a ppe a l gr a nt e d

p u r s u a nt t o T. R. A. P. Rul e 9, i s whe t he r t he l e a s e be t we e n t he

p a r t i e s i s t oo br oa d t o be e nf or c e a bl e , a s wa s he l d by t he

Tr i a l Cour t .

Si nc e 1994, a p pe l l a nt ha s be e n a t e na nt i n

a p p e l l e e s ’ s hoppi ng c e nt e r , a nd t he l e a s e c ont a i ns t he

f o l l o wi ng c l a us e :

Dur i ng t he t e r m of t hi s Le a s e , t he Te na nt s ha l l h a v e t he e xc l us i ve a nd s ol e r i ght t o ope r a t e a r e t a i l s t or e i n t he s hoppi ng c e nt e r , t he pr i nc i pa l bus i ne s s of whi c h i s t h e s e l l i ng of a ny one of t he f ol l owi n g c l a s s e s o f me r c ha ndi s e , t o wi t : ha r dwa r e , hous e wa r e s , a ut omobi l e s uppl i e s , e l e c t r i c a l pl umbi ng, t oys , home f ur ni s hi ngs , s por t i ng goods , a ppl i a nc e s a nd pa i nt s . No ot he r r e t a i l s t or e i n t h e s hoppi ng c e nt e r s ha l l de vot e mor e t ha n t we nt y- f i v e pe r c e nt ( 25% of i t s s a l e s t o t he a ggr e ga t e of t h e ) f or e goi ng c l a s s e s of me r c ha ndi s e . I n 1996, a ppe l l a nt wa s ma de a wa r e t ha t

a p p e l l e e s ha d r e nt e d s pa c e i n t he s hoppi ng c e nt e r t o a Dol l a r

Ge n e r a l St or e a nd Aut o Zone . Appe l l a nt f i l e d s ui t t o pr e ve n t

wh a t wa s s e e n a s a vi ol a t i on of i t s l e a s e by t he l a ndl or d.

On t he he a r i ng f or a n i nj unc t i on, a ppe l l a nt ’ s own e r

t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he p r oduc t s s ol d a t Dol l a r Ge ne r a l St or e

o v e r l a ppe d wi t h 68% of t he me r c ha ndi s e s ol d a t hi s s t or e , s u c h

a s e l e c t r i c a l e qui pme nt , l a wn a nd ga r de n f ur ni t ur e ,

a p p l i a nc e s , pa i nt , s por t i ng goods , a nd t oys . He a l s o

t e s t i f i e d t ha t 7. 9 % o f a ppe l l a nt ’ s s a l e s c a me f r om a ut omot i ve

p r o d u c t s , whi c h he be l i e ve d woul d be ne ga t i ve l y a f f e c t e d by

t he c o mpe t i t i on o f Aut o Zone . Appe l l e e s ’ wi t ne s s e s t e s t i f i e d

t h a t t he r e s t r i c t i ve c ov e na nt wa s br oa de r t ha n t ha t i n a

t yp i c a l c omme r c i a l l e a s e a nd t ha t , i n t he i r opi ni on, t h e

a d d i t i ona l bus i ne s s e s woul d br i ng e xt r a t r a f f i c t o a ppe l l a nt

a n d i mpr ove i t s bus i ne s s .

The Tr i a l Cour t de ni e d a ppe l l a nt ’ s a ppl i c a t i on f or

a n i n j unc t i on, f i ndi ng t ha t t he c l a us e i n t he l e a s e wa s t oo

b r o a d t o be e nf or c e a bl e a nd t ha t t he r e ha d be e n ?no

d e mo n s t r a t i on t ha t t he Pl a i nt i f f woul d s uf f e r i r r e pa r a bl e h a r m

f r o m t hi s t i me u nt i l we t r y t hi s l a ws ui t . ?

Re s t r i c t i ve c ove na nt s a r e f r e que nt l y i ns e r t e d i nt o

s h o p p i ng c e nt e r l e a s e s , f or t he pur pos e of pr ot e c t i ng t he

t e n a n t a ga i ns t c ompe t i t i on wi t hi n t he c e nt e r . 49 Am. J ur 2d

La n d l or d a nd Te na nt § 70 ( 1995) . W ha ve be e n r e f e r r e d t o n o e

2 Te nn e s s e e whi c h h a s a ddr e s s e d t he i r e nf or c e a bi l i t y. Howe ve r ,

ma n y o t he r s t a t e s ha ve c ons i de r e d s uc h c l a us e s a nd f ound t he m

e n f o r c e a bl e s o l ong a s t he y a r e r e a s ona bl e i n s c ope .

C. K. &J . K. , I nc . v . Fai r v i e w Shoppi ng Ce nt e r Cor p. , 407 N. E. 2 d

5 0 7 ( Ohi o 1980) ; Al e x an de r ’ s De p’ t St or e s v . Ar nol d Cons t a b l e

Co r p . , 250 A. 2d 792 ( N. J . Supe r . Ct . Ch. Di v. 1969) ;

Na t i o n al Supe r M k e t s , I nc . v . M ar agna Tr us t Co. , 5 70 N. E. 2d

1 1 9 1 ( I l l . App. Ct . 1991 ) ; M nde l l v . Gol de n- Far l e y of e

Ho p k i ns v i l l e , I nc . , 573 S. W 2d 346 ( Ky. Ct . App. 1978) . . The

r a t i o n a l e be hi nd t he s e de c i s i ons i s t he r e c ogni t i on t ha t

r a t h e r t ha n r e s t r i c t i ng c ompe t i t i on, s uc h c ove na nt s s e r ve t o

f a c i l i t a t e t r a de a nd i nduc e t e na nt s t o r e nt i n a pa r t i c ul a r

s h o p p i ng c e nt e r .

The r e a s ona bl e ne s s of a r e s t r i c t i ve c ove na nt i s

e xa mi n e d i n t e r ms o f i t s s c ope a nd e f f e c t . C. K. &J . K. , I nc .

Th e r e s t r i c t i on i n t hi s c a s e i s not unr e a s ona bl y br oa d by

t he s e c r i t e r i a . I n t e r ms of e f f e c t , t he r e s t r i c t i on a f f e c t s

o n l y a s i ngl e s hoppi ng c e nt e r . I t i s r e a s ona bl e f or t he

p l a i nt i f f t o wa nt t o a v oi d c ompe t i t i on wi t hi n t hi s c e nt e r .

Th e publ i c ’ s i nt e r e s t i s not a dve r s e l y a f f e c t e d, a s t he ma r k e t

a s a whol e i s u na f f e c t e d whe r e t he r e a r e s e ve r a l s hoppi ng

c e n t e r s a va i l a bl e i n a c ommuni t y. I n t e r ms of s c ope ,

d e f e n d a nt s ’ e xpe r t opi ne d t ha t t hi s c l a us e wa s muc h br oa de r

t h a n t hos e he ha d de a l t wi t h i n hi s e xpe r i e nc e . I t i s t r ue

t h a t t he c l a us e doe s c o nt a i n a r a t he r l e ngt hy l i s t of i t e ms

wh i c h ot he r s t or e s wi t hi n t he c e nt e r ma y not c a r r y i n

s i g n i f i c a nt a mount s . Howe ve r , c our t s ha ve e xpe r i e nc e d

d i f f i c ul t y i nt e r pr e t i ng c l a us e s whi c h de s c r i be d c ompe t i t or s

wi t h l e s s s pe c i f i c i t y. Se e e . g. , Ri t e Ai d of Ohi o, I nc . ,

3 M r c ’ s Var i e t y St or e , I nc . , 638 N. E. 2d 1056 ( Ohi o Ct . App. a

1994) ; Sny de r ’ s Dr ug St or e s , I nc . , v . She e hy Pr ope r t i e s ,

I nc . , 266 N. W 2d 882 ( M nn. 1978) . . i

I f t he c l a us e me r e l y ba r r e d s i mi l a r ?ha r dwa r e ? s t or e s

o r n a me d s pe c i f i c c ompe t i t or s , i t woul d be i gnor i ng t he f a c t

t h a t a ppe l l a nt ’ s bus i ne s s de pe nds on mor e t ha n s i mpl y t he s a l e

o f h a r dwa r e 1 . The l i s t of goods , a l t hough r a t he r nume r ous ,

s e r v e s t o c l a r i f y a ny a mbi gui t y t ha t mi ght ot he r wi s e e xi s t i n

t he c l a us e . I t i s l i mi t e d t o i t e ms whi c h pr ovi de s i gni f i c a n t

p o r t i ons of pl a i nt i f f ’ s s a l e s a nd i s not s o ove r l y br oa d i n

s c o p e a s t o r e nde r i t un e nf or c e a bl e .

I f t he l a ngua ge of a c ont r a c t i s c l e a r a nd

u n a mb i guous , i t mus t be c ons t r ue d a s wr i t t e n. Cummi ngs v .

Va u g h n, 911 S. W 2d 739, 742 ( Te nn. App. 1995) . . Thi s l e a s e

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mendell v. Golden-Farley of Hopkinsville, Inc.
573 S.W.2d 346 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1978)
Alexander S. v. Arnold Constable
250 A.2d 792 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1969)
Rite Aid of Ohio, Inc. v. Marc's Variety Store, Inc.
638 N.E.2d 1056 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1994)
Cummings v. Vaughn
911 S.W.2d 739 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1995)
Nichols v. Sanborn
70 N.E.2d 1 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1946)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Keith Hardware, Inc. v. Douglas L. White and Carolyn L. White - Concurring, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/keith-hardware-inc-v-douglas-l-white-and-carolyn-l-tennctapp-1997.