Beckett v. City of Paris Dry Goods Co.
Nature of the Case
This was a dispute over the nature of a contract between two parties.
Facts
City of Paris Dry Goods Co. (D) agreed with Beckett (P), an optometrist, that Beckett would be permitted to operate the optical department in the company’s large store for three years. The space that Beckett would occupy was designated by the defendant and the defendant was to supply all light, heat, water, telephone, and elevator service. Beckett agreed to supply all equipment, fixtures, and show cases conforming in style and finish with the rest of the store.
Beckett was to pay defendant twenty percent of his total monthly sales. He was required to purchase merchandise in his own name and credit and agreed to provide liability insurance to the store for Beckett’s negligence of that of his employees. The contract also stated there was no assignment of the contract permitted unless the defendant agreed in a signed writing, and that on the last day of the term, Beckett was to peaceably surrender and yield any occupied premises.
Beckett took possession of several rooms and had been operating the optical department for more than two years when the defendant terminated the agreement for an alleged violation of the failure to deposit receipts with its cashier. Eventually all of Beckett’s equipment and merchandise was taken from the store and Beckett was excluded from the spaces. The defendant claims that it only granted Beckett a license and not a lease.
Issue
- Is the intent to lease to be determined from the face of the documents and dealings between the parties?
Holding and Rule of Law
- Yes. The intent to lease is to be determined from the face of the documents and dealings between the parties.
Under the contract Beckett was to conduct his business in accordance with the policy of the store, to do his billing through the defendant’s office and to discharge employees it found objectionable. However, there are other provisions in this agreement that indicate the existence of a lease. The agreement provides that the space be delivered in tenantable condition. The contract itself even used the term lease and called for a written consent to assign, which is not applicable to a license.
The terminology of a lease permeates this agreement. Although such usage is not conclusive it does create a strong presumption that the parties contemplated such an arrangement.
A lease must include a definite description of the property leased and an agreement for rent to be paid at particular times during a specified term. If a party enters into an ambiguous contract of uncertain description of property to be occupied and pays the stipulated rent, it will be enforced as a lease if the parties acted upon it relating to particular premises. The relationship of the parties was one of landlord and tenant. The violation of the requirement that all money be turned in at the end of the day is not sufficient to justify forfeiture.
Disposition
Beckett was evicted three months prior to the end of the lease period and is therefore entitled to $778.83 for lost profits instead of the $666 allowed as actual damages.