Jeffrey Kavin, Inc. v. Frye
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
MOSK, J.—
INTRODUCTION
One of four lessees, who was not a defendant in the action below, signed and delivered to the lessor, with the lessor’s approval, a writing exercising an option to extend a lease after the expiration of the period to exercise that option. We hold that defendants, the three other colessees, were not bound by that purported exercise of the option. We also hold that the increased rental provision for holding over did not apply when one lessee did so with the consent of the lessor. We therefore affirm the judgment.
*38BACKGROUND1
A. The Lease
On February 17, 2004, lessor…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Cuiellette v. City of Los AngelesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board v. Handlery Hotel, Inc.California Court of Appeal · 1999
- Hayward Lumber & Investment Co. v. Construction Products Corp.California Court of Appeal · 1953
- Kaufman v. GoldmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2011
- Shenson v. ShensonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1954
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Camp 1 Truckee LLC v. Daxko, LLCDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Conservatorship of T.B.California Court of Appeal · 2024
- Strom v. Artega CA3California Court of Appeal · 2014