Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantleaseobjection
plaintiffdefendantleaseobjection

Related Cases

Prescott v. Smits, 146 Vt. 430, 505 A.2d 1211
View Case »
Betchard v. Iverson, 35 Wash.2d 344, 212 P.2d 783
View Case »
Hammond v. Halsey, 287 S.C. 46, 336 S.E.2d 495
View Case »
Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U.S. 409, 88 S.Ct. 2186, 20 L.Ed.2d 1189, 1 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 9832, 47 O.O.2d 43
View Case »
State v. Kofines, 33 R.I. 211, 80 A. 432 (Mem), Am.Ann.Cas. 1913C,1120
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

B & R Oil Co., Inc. v. Ray’s Mobile Homes, Inc., 139 Vt. 122, 422 A.2d 1267

Facts

In 1954, the plaintiff, under a different corporate name, leased land with a retail gasoline station from the Village of Hardwick. The lease included a provision that prohibited assignment without the lessor's express consent. In 1977, the plaintiff requested permission to assign the lease to a third party, which the defendant refused, wishing instead to renegotiate the lease terms despite having no objections to the third party or the business type.

In 1954, the plaintiff, under a different corporate name, leased land with a retail gasoline station from the Village of Hardwick. The lease included a provision that prohibited assignment without the lessor's express consent. In 1977, the plaintiff requested permission to assign the lease to a third party, which the defendant refused, wishing instead to renegotiate the lease terms despite having no objections to the third party or the business type.

Issue

Whether the lessee could assign the lease without the express consent of the lessor, given the lease's prohibition against assignment without such consent.

Whether the lessee could assign the lease without the express consent of the lessor, given the lease's prohibition against assignment without such consent.

Rule

In Vermont, a lessor has the right to arbitrarily withhold consent to an assignment unless there is a waiver, and any attempted assignment by the lessee is invalid in the absence of consent.

In Vermont, a lessor has the right to arbitrarily withhold consent to an assignment unless there is a waiver, and any attempted assignment by the lessee is invalid in the absence of consent.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by affirming that the lease's clear language prohibited assignment without the lessor's express consent. The court noted that the plaintiff's argument for a reasonableness standard was not supported by Vermont law, which endorses the majority rule allowing lessors to withhold consent arbitrarily.

The court applied the rule by affirming that the lease's clear language prohibited assignment without the lessor's express consent. The court noted that the plaintiff's argument for a reasonableness standard was not supported by Vermont law, which endorses the majority rule allowing lessors to withhold consent arbitrarily.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the lessee could not assign the lease without the lessor's express consent.

The court affirmed the judgment of the Superior Court, concluding that the lessee could not assign the lease without the lessor's express consent.

Who won?

Defendant prevailed in the case because the court upheld the lease's provision requiring express consent for assignment, which the lessee failed to obtain.

Defendant prevailed in the case because the court upheld the lease's provision requiring express consent for assignment, which the lessee failed to obtain.

You must be