Morris v. Mutascio

BARNARD, P. J. This is an action for damages for breach of an oral lease. At the outset of the trial an objection to the introduction of any evidence was sustained on the ground that no cause of action was stated. A judgment of dismissal was then entered, from which the plaintiffs have appealed.

[276]The amended complaint alleges that the defendants owned a hotel, apartment and store building in Palm Springs; that on March 28, 1948, the parties entered into an oral, agreement and lease whereby the plaintiffs leased a storeroom in said building for two years commencing September 1, 1948, with a renewal option; that this agreement provided that the plaintiffs would equip and operate a restaurant, and that the defendants would cooperate with them in obtaining a license for the sale of beer on the premises, and would later reduce the agreement to writing; that the plaintiffs paid certain rentals, installed certain fixtures, and devoted their time to the business from September 11, 1948, to March 22, 1949; that the defendants failed to perform said agreement in that they opposed plaintiffs’ attempts to obtain a beer license, refused to put the lease into writing, and entered the premises during the absence of plaintiffs and without their consent; that by reason of the failure of the defendants to perform their agreement the plaintiffs, on March 22, 1949, moved their stock and equipment from said storeroom; that by reason of these wrongful acts the plaintiffs have been damaged in certain amounts; that the plaintiffs were induced to enter into this agreement and lease by defendants’ representations that they possessed information superior to that of the plaintiffs, and knew that such a license could be obtained; that plaintiffs, being nonresidents of the county, were unaware of the conditions and requirements necessary to obtain such a license; that they believed and relied upon defendants’ representations; that beginning on August 17, 1948, and continuing through the fall the plaintiffs, over the objections of the defendants, endeavored to obtain such a license; that plaintiffs were not denied said license until January 31, 1949; that the lack of such a license made the, operation of this business unprofitable to the plaintiffs or to anyone else; and that the plaintiffs would not have entered into this oral agreement and lease but for these representations.

The appellants contend that (1) this was an oral lease, and not an oral agreement to lease; (2) that respondents breached the lease ;by opposing and objecting to appellants’ attempt to obtain a beer license, by refusing to put the lease in writing, and by. entering the premises during their absence; and (3) that respondents are estopped to raise the defense of the statute of frauds.