Legal Opinion

Amoco Oil Co. v. Jones

Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Decided March 19, 1991No. C8-90-1933PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

EDWARD D. MULALLY, Judge.

Amoco Oil Company challenges a directed verdict for respondent Llewellan K. Jones, claiming material fact issues exist regarding Jones’ obligation to rebuild or restore leased property under a general repair and delivery covenant. We affirm.

FACTS

Respondent Jones operated a gas station which he had leased from appellant Amoco Oil Company (Amoco) since 1968. In general, Amoco agents provided a standard lease form for Jones’ signature. Jones testified minimal negotiation was involved, “they presented the lease and you signed it or not.” The parties entered the…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Turner v. Alpha Phi Sorority HouseSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1979
  2. Midland National Bank of Minneapolis v. PerranoskiSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1980
  3. Realty & Rebuilding Co. v. ReaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1920
  4. Sullivan v. F. D. Chapman Construction Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1975
  5. Wattles v. South Omaha Ice & Coal Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1897

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Carlson Real Estate Co. v. SoltanCourt of Appeals of Minnesota · 1996

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

Powered by the Exa API