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

contractplaintiffdefendantattorneytrialleaserescissionbilateral contract
contractplaintiffdefendantattorneytrialleaseappellant

Related Cases

Deere & Co. v. Van Natta, 660 F.Supp. 433, 1 U.S.P.Q.2d 1738
View Case »
Jones v. Hoar, 5 Pick. 285, 22 Mass. 285, 1827 WL 2144
View Case »
In re Pickel, 493 B.R. 258
View Case »
Bove v. Donner-Hanna Coke Corp., 236 A.D. 37, 258 N.Y.S. 229
View Case »
Berin v. Olson, 183 Conn. 337, 439 A.2d 357
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Radiophone Service, Inc. v. Crowson Well Service, Inc., 309 So.2d 393

Facts

The plaintiff, Radiophone Service, Inc., owned a radio tower and leased it to the defendant, Crowson Well Service, Inc., for a monthly rental of $75. After the defendant failed to pay rent for December 1970 and subsequent months, the plaintiff filed a suit seeking $675 in past due rent, $350 in attorney's fees, and rescission of the lease effective September 1, 1971. The defendant had previously notified the plaintiff that it no longer needed the tower service and had removed its equipment.

Plaintiff, owner of a radio tower, granted defendant a three-year written lease commencing December 1, 1969, whereby defendant was permitted to use plaintiff's tower to install and operate its radio communications equipment.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff effectively terminated the lease for nonpayment of rent and what constitutes a reasonable attorney's fee for this rescission.

The primary question to be resolved is whether the plaintiff, by exercising its prerogative under the lease, effectively terminated the lease for nonpayment of rent and if so, what would be a reasonable attorney's fee to be awarded for this recission.

Rule

A bilateral contract requires the express consent of both parties to effect a change, modification, rescission, termination, or cancellation of the contract.

Such a contract likewise requires the mutual consent of the parties to effect a change, modification, recission, termination or cancellation of the contract.

Analysis

The court determined that by filing suit for rescission of the lease, the plaintiff had elected a remedy that was inconsistent with later attempts to enforce the lease. The mutual consent to terminate the lease was evidenced by the defendant's notification of no longer needing the tower and the plaintiff's request for termination. Thus, the plaintiff could not shift to another remedy after having exercised the option to rescind.

We find plaintiff, by commencing suit against defendant for recission of the lease, as it had the option to do under the contract, elected a remedy which is inconsistent with its subsequent suit to enforce the lease.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the lease was effectively terminated and the attorney's fees awarded were reasonable.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment is affirmed at plaintiff-appellant's cost.

Who won?

The defendant, Crowson Well Service, Inc., prevailed because the court upheld the termination of the lease due to mutual consent and the plaintiff's election of remedy.

Conversely, defendant contends the record clearly supports the judgment of the trial judge which in effect held that the lease agreement had been terminated as of September 1, 1971 by the mutual consent of the parties.

You must be