Legal Opinion

Schoninger v. Union Oil Co. of California

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided November 3, 1987No. 87-445Published

1Per curiam

We find no error in the trial court interpreting a lease provision for a service station operating in connection with a shopping center, to require the lessee or his assigns to sell gasoline as well as oil and lubrication for automobiles. The lease required the lessee to operate a “typical” service station. It also required, under the use provision, for the sale of “ * * * petroleum products * *

The trial judge, in exercising equity power, has fashioned a remedy that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the responsibility of the parties to the lease and error not having been made…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Marsh v. HartleyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1959
  2. Hemphill v. PesatSupreme Court of Florida · 1929
  3. Phipps v. SheffmanDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1968
  4. Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-Teq Enterprises, Ltd.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1973

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API