Bartel v. Associated Dental Supply Co.

BRAY, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment against it in the sum of $17,650 for rent and attorney’s fees under a written lease.

Contentions op the Parties

No attack is made on the sufficiency of the evidence to support the findings and judgment,

if

parol evidence was admissible. Plaintiff contended and the trial court found that paragraph 33 of the lease was ambiguous and uncertain, and therefore parol evidence was admissible to show that the parties intended by it that the right of defendant lessee to

either

cancel

or

obtain a reduction of rent was conditional as limited in the second part of that paragraph. Defendant contended that the paragraph was neither ambiguous nor uncertain and that it provided that defendant had a right to cancel, with or without cause,

or

a right to reduced rent if the second part conditions should exist.

The questioned paragraph follows:

“From and after January 1st, 1949, the Lessee is granted

the right to cancel this lease upon six

months’

written notice

[752]

or at its option shall become entitled, to a reduction of rent

to be agreed upon mutually between the parties hereto

in the event that

the business of Lessee has declined to a degree that it would be impossible to pay the rent herein provided, due to any or all of the following causes or reasons; viz.:

‘ ‘