Legal Opinion

Oceantown Realty Corp. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.

Long Beach City Court

Decided August 21, 1967PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtAbraham Sohlissel, J.

Both parties hereto, agreeing that “ there are no triable issues of fact ”, move for summary judgment in this action to recover additional rent payable under a tax increase clause.

It is true that defendant has somewhat hedged this concession by a conditional reliance on the rule of ‘£ practical construction ’ ’. Since, however, defendant has agreed that this rule does not come into play unless the clause in question is first found to be *503ambiguous, which this court is convinced it is not, only a question of law is here required to be resolved.

On April 16, 1959 the parties hereto entered into a…

2Cited by4 opinions

  1. John J. Duane Realty Corp. v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  2. Edra Associates v. Deer Park Beauty Corp.Suffolk County District Court · 1977
  3. Plaza v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
  4. Blount v. DenaultMassachusetts Appeals Court · 1989

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

Powered by the Exa API