White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber

District Court of Appeal of Florida

White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber

229 So. 2d 300, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6479

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 23, 1969

DocketNo. 69-341

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 229 So. 2d 300 (White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber) 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

White Star Realty Co. v. Schreiber, 229 So. 2d 300, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6479 (Fla. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

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.

[301]*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.

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

PEARSON, Chief Judge.

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.

[301]*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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

229 So. 2d 300, 1969 Fla. App. LEXIS 6479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-star-realty-co-v-schreiber-fladistctapp-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack