Mountain claims that it was discharged from its obligations under the lease because of material breach. Is Mountain correct? Explain.
| ♥ 0 |
Mountain Restaurant Corporation (Mountain) leased commercial space in the ParkCenter Mall to operate a restaurant called Zac’s Grill. The lease specified that the lessee shall “at all times have a nonexclusive and nonrevocable right, together with the other tenants and occupants of … the shopping center, to use the parking area … for itself, its customers and employees.” Zac’s Grill was to be a fast-food restaurant where tables were anticipated to “turn over” twice during lunch. Zac’s operated successfully until parking close to the restaurant became restricted. Two other restaurants opened and began competing for parking spaces, and the parking lot would become full between 12:00 and 12:30 P.M. Parking, however, was always available at other areas of the mall. Business declined for Zac’s, which fell behind on the rent due to ParkCenter until finally the restaurant closed. Mountain claims that it was discharged from its obligations under the lease because of material breach. Is Mountain correct? Explain. |
Explanation
There is a breach of rules and the substantial performances of the parties in the case are compromised. The discernment for Mall PC is as follows:
Restaurant M declares that the parking location was very important for their customers. This is because during lunchtime the customers cannot walk far distances from the restaurants with their cars parked away. The parking location is not mentioned in the lease of Restaurant M.
As per the provision, the lessee has the non-irreversible and non-specialized right to use the parking area for the customers, employees, and other tenants.
Although Restaurant M believes that parking available near the restaurant is very important for its business, it is not provided in the lease.
Verified Answer
Individual M was not released from his responsibilities. The location closest to the restaurant was generally filled during the lunch, which did not help claim that the contents of the lease were canceled because parking in that area is not provided by the lease and was reserved for Individual M.
