Hindquarter Corp. v. Property Development Corp.
Washington Supreme Court
1DissentRosellini, J.
(dissenting) — The majority opinion in this case has effectively rewritten the terms of a lease to accommodate the assignee of the landlord's interest. It is obvious that the petitioner, had it been the author of the lease, would have made time of the essence with respect to the payment of rent and would have conditioned the exercise of the options upon the timely payment of the rents as they fell due. It would also have conditioned the renewals upon the prospering of the tenant's business. But those are not the terms to which the original landlord assented and by which its assignee is bound.…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Nork v. Pacific Coast Medical Enterprises, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1977
- Streicher v. HeimburgeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1928
- Lutterloh v. PattersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1947
- Gadsden Bowling Center, Inc. v. FrankSupreme Court of Alabama · 1947
- Klepper v. HooverCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1971
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.