Schoninger v. Union Oil Co. of California

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Schoninger v. Union Oil Co. of California

514 So. 2d 430, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2513, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 3, 1987

DocketNo. 87-445

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 514 So. 2d 430 (Schoninger v. Union Oil Co. of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Schoninger v. Union Oil Co. of California, 514 So. 2d 430, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2513, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court interpreting a lease provision for a service station operating in connection with a shopping center, to require the lessee or his assigns to sell gasoline as well as oil and lubrication for automobiles. The lease required the lessee to operate a “typical” service station. It also required, under the use provision, for the sale of “ * * * petroleum products * *

The trial judge, in exercising equity power, has fashioned a remedy that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the responsibility of the parties to the lease and error not having been made to appear, we affirm. Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561 (1929); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-TEQ Enterprises, Ltd., 275 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Phipps v. Sheffman, 211 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Marsh v. Hartley, 109 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court interpreting a lease provision for a service station operating in connection with a shopping center, to require the lessee or his assigns to sell gasoline as well as oil and lubrication for automobiles. The lease required the lessee to operate a “typical” service station. It also required, under the use provision, for the sale of “ * * * petroleum products * *

The trial judge, in exercising equity power, has fashioned a remedy that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the responsibility of the parties to the lease and error not having been made to appear, we affirm. Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561 (1929); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-TEQ Enterprises, Ltd., 275 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Phipps v. Sheffman, 211 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Marsh v. Hartley, 109 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

514 So. 2d 430, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 2513, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 10798, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schoninger-v-union-oil-co-of-california-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack