Davidson Brothers, Inc. v. D. Katz & Sons, Inc. case brief
summary
643 A.2d 642 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994)
CASE FACTS
Plaintiff corporation closed one of its supermarket's in the downtown area, and sold the property to a merchant, who then sold the property to defendant city. Defendant then leased the property to another company that operated a supermarket at the location in violation of a covenant prohibiting the operation of a supermarket at that location contained in the contract of sale from plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment that held plaintiff corporation's covenant prohibiting the use of a property sold to defendant city for a supermarket was unenforceable. The covenant was so contrary to the public policy of promoting growth in the downtown area that the covenant was in these circumstances unreasonable and unenforceable.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
643 A.2d 642 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff corporation appealed a
judgment from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County,
that held a covenant prohibiting the use of property as a supermarket
was unenforceable against defendant city, who purchased the property
for use as a supermarket in an effort to promote economic development
in the downtown area.CASE FACTS
Plaintiff corporation closed one of its supermarket's in the downtown area, and sold the property to a merchant, who then sold the property to defendant city. Defendant then leased the property to another company that operated a supermarket at the location in violation of a covenant prohibiting the operation of a supermarket at that location contained in the contract of sale from plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the judgment which held that plaintiff's covenant adversely impacted the public interest and therefore was unenforceable.
- Closing the supermarket caused difficulties and hardships on the downtown citizens, who lost the only opportunity to purchase food at a reasonably close location.
- Plaintiff's restriction impeded the relocation of another supermarket operation to the downtown area.
- This obstacle to remediation efforts by defendant city was so contrary to the public policies expressed in the New Jersey Urban Enterprise Zone Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 52:27H-60 to H89, and similar acts, that it represented a scorched earth policy that under the circumstances was unreasonable and unenforceable.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the judgment that held plaintiff corporation's covenant prohibiting the use of a property sold to defendant city for a supermarket was unenforceable. The covenant was so contrary to the public policy of promoting growth in the downtown area that the covenant was in these circumstances unreasonable and unenforceable.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
No comments:
Post a Comment