{"id":617,"date":"2011-08-19T11:49:24","date_gmt":"2011-08-19T15:49:24","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?p=617"},"modified":"2012-07-27T10:07:49","modified_gmt":"2012-07-27T14:07:49","slug":"winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/","title":{"rendered":"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987)"},"content":{"rendered":"

Case Name: <\/strong>Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture
\nPlaintiff:<\/strong> Winternitz
\nDefendant: <\/strong>Summit Hills Joint Venture
\nCitation: <\/strong>73 Md. App. 16, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987)<\/p>\n

Key Facts: <\/strong>
\nPlaintiff operated a pharmacy and convenient store under a lease with defendant. The end of the lease was approaching and the plaintiff asked if he could renew the lease with the option to transfer the lease to a purchaser of his business. The defendant stated that it had no objection. The defendant delivered a two year lease which was not signed.
\nThe plaintiff had a purchaser for his business but after the contract was signed, the defendant told him he would not allow him to transfer the lease to the new purchaser.
\nThe plaintiff alleged:
\n(1) The landlord orally agreed to renew that lease and to permit him to assign it to a purchaser of his business,
\n(2) the landlord and its agents thereafter breached both the renewed lease and the assignment, and
\n(3) as a result of their conduct, he was required to reduce significantly the sale price of his business.<\/p>\n

Procedural Posture: <\/strong>A jury awarded him $45,000 in damages. The court nullified that awarded by granting judgment N.O.V. on the basis that the Statute of Frauds made the allege lease renewal unenforceable, leaving nothing to assign.<\/p>\n

Judgment: <\/strong>The court affirmed the court\u2019s findings on the first two claims but agreed that the defendant did maliciously interfere with the plaintiff\u2019s right to contract.<\/p>\n

Reasoning: <\/strong>The plaintiff relied on \u201cpart performance\u201d for counts 1 and 2. \u201cPart performance\u201d is an equitable doctrine available only where the principal relief sought is specific performance of the oral agreement. The claims were specifically for money damages.<\/p>\n

Note: If he had been seeking specific performance, the exception of part performance would apply and he would have won.<\/p>\n

See Exceptions to Statute of Frauds<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Case Name: Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture Plaintiff: Winternitz Defendant: Summit Hills Joint Venture Citation: 73 Md. App. 16, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) Key Facts: Plaintiff operated a pharmacy and convenient store under a lease with defendant. The end of the lease was approaching and the plaintiff asked if he could renew the lease … <\/p>\n

Continue reading “Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987)”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[81,13],"tags":[35,143,34],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","yoast_head":"\nWinternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) -<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Case brief for Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987). Plaintiff operated a pharmacy and convenient store under a lease with defendant. The end of the lease was approaching and the plaintiff asked if he could renew the lease with the option to transfer the lease to a purchaser of his business.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) -\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Case brief for Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987). Plaintiff operated a pharmacy and convenient store under a lease with defendant. The end of the lease was approaching and the plaintiff asked if he could renew the lease with the option to transfer the lease to a purchaser of his business.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"MiB Law\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-08-19T15:49:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2012-07-27T14:07:49+00:00\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"name\":\"MiB Law\",\"description\":\"Lawschool Notes and Outlines\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}\",\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/#webpage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/\",\"name\":\"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) -\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-19T15:49:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-27T14:07:49+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"description\":\"Case brief for Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987). Plaintiff operated a pharmacy and convenient store under a lease with defendant. The end of the lease was approaching and the plaintiff asked if he could renew the lease with the option to transfer the lease to a purchaser of his business.\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"@id\":\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#personlogo\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/1.gravatar.com\/avatar\/7e4456f2e886e2b22adb13ba439e70ed?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/miblaw\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/617"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=617"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/617\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1025,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/617\/revisions\/1025"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=617"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=617"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=617"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}