{"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":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[81,13],"tags":[35,143,34],"class_list":["post-617","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-contracts-case-briefs","category-contract-law","tag-contract-law-2","tag-part-performance","tag-statute-of-frauds"],"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<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Andrew\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Andrew\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\"},\"headline\":\"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987)\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-08-19T15:49:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2012-07-27T14:07:49+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":308,\"commentCount\":0,\"keywords\":[\"contract law\",\"part performance\",\"statute of frauds\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"Contract Law\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\\\/\",\"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\":\"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\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373\",\"name\":\"Andrew\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Andrew\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/miblaw\"],\"url\":\"http:\\\/\\\/www.miblaw.com\\\/lawschool\\\/author\\\/admin\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) -","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.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987) -","og_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.","og_url":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/","og_site_name":"MiB Law","article_published_time":"2011-08-19T15:49:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2012-07-27T14:07:49+00:00","author":"Andrew","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Andrew","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/"},"author":{"name":"Andrew","@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373"},"headline":"Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture, 532 A.2d 1089 (1987)","datePublished":"2011-08-19T15:49:24+00:00","dateModified":"2012-07-27T14:07:49+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/"},"wordCount":308,"commentCount":0,"keywords":["contract law","part performance","statute of frauds"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","Contract Law"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/winternitz-v-summit-hills-joint-venture\/","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":"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":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/#\/schema\/person\/14950d73730da8ecbd5b2d2690155373","name":"Andrew","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b2f035d25cdc0b1735607e6baf1124d8d98dec2748feb5bf2907dcd0837f5a69?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Andrew"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/","https:\/\/x.com\/miblaw"],"url":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/author\/admin\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.miblaw.com\/lawschool\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/617","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"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}]}}