LAWRENCE G. BECKETT V. CITY OF PARIS DRY GOODS CO., Sup. Ct. of CA, 1939. 14 Cal.2d 633, 96 P.2d 122 by JohnMValentine

VIEWS: 147 PAGES: 1

									PROPERTY
LAWRENCE G. BECKETT V. CITY OF PARIS DRY GOODS CO., Sup. Ct. of CA, 1939. 14 Cal.2d 633, 96 P.2d 122. History: Beckett—Plaintiff-Appellant; City of Paris—Defendant-Appellant; Plaintiff Beckett recovered damages for unlawful eviction; trial judge refused to allow certain amounts claimed; Beckett wants more damages; Paris wants decision overturned; both parties appealed from the judgment Facts: Beckett is an optometrist who agreed in writing w/City of Paris to conduct a firstclass optical dept in its large store; Beckett agreed to furnish it w/the likes of the store and pay 20% of his total monthly sales as consideration for the right to do business upon the conditions stated; store notified Beckett they were canceling the agreement b/c he did not deposit receipts w/the cashier and they told him to leave on the evening of December 7th; date was postponed for 3 weeks; and then Plaintiff’s instruments/merchandise were removed and he was excluded Issue(s): Is the contract between Beckett and City of Paris a lease or only a license to occupy certain property? It is a lease Holding: Add $147.83 to the judgment amount of $666 for actual losses; Plaintiff Beckett entitled to recover upon his cause of action for eviction Analysis: Language in the agreement points to lessor/lessee relationship; parties use the term “lease”; rights are given and language is used throughout the agreement which indicates it’s a lease—“cannot assign this lease” and “monthly rental” are examples; definite description w/in the premises; no one disagrees that the distinction between lease and license is important b/c a license can be terminated for just cause (like not turning in receipts), but if it is a lease, there needs to be something more substantial


								
To top