Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp.
163 N.E. 2d 4, 340 Mass. 124 (1959)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A landlord's inexcusable failure to provide services essential to the use of the leased premises constitutes a material breach and a constructive eviction, entitling the tenant to seek equitable relief without first abandoning the property. A lease provision stating that service interruptions are not a constructive eviction will be interpreted to apply only to excusable, not material and inexcusable, failures.
Facts:
- On July 1, 1955, Charles E. Burt, Inc. (Burt) entered into a five-year lease for space on the fifth floor of a building to operate its printing business.
- Seven Grand Corporation (Seven Grand) subsequently became the landlord by assignment.
- Beginning in November 1957, Seven Grand failed to provide essential services, including electric power, sufficient heat, and elevator service.
- The lease contained a clause stating that no interruption of service 'shall be deemed a constructive eviction'.
- Seven Grand's failure to provide these services was not due to unavoidable or excusable causes.
- As a direct result of these failures, Burt's printing machinery sustained damage from the cold, and Burt incurred significant expenses to independently secure power and lost profits due to business interruptions.
Procedural Posture:
- Burt (lessee) filed a bill in equity in the trial court against Seven Grand (lessor) seeking to rescind the lease, enjoin rent collection, and obtain damages.
- The case was referred to a master, who proceeded ex parte when Seven Grand failed to appear.
- The master found in favor of Burt and recommended an award of $2,035 in damages.
- The trial court denied Seven Grand's motion to recommit the master's report and confirmed the report.
- The trial court entered a final decree that rescinded the lease and ordered Seven Grand to pay damages to Burt.
- Seven Grand (appellant) appealed the trial court's final decree to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a landlord's material, inexcusable failure to provide essential services vital to a tenant's business constitute a constructive eviction, entitling the tenant to seek equitable relief like lease rescission without first having to abandon the premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Cutter, J.
Yes. A landlord's substantial and inexcusable failure to provide essential services constitutes a constructive eviction, and a tenant is not required to abandon the premises before seeking equitable relief. The provision of services like heat, power, and elevator access for an upper-floor business is essential to the lease and goes to the core of the agreement. Such a failure is a breach of the covenant of quiet enjoyment. The court interpreted the lease clause—which stated service interruptions were not a constructive eviction—to apply only to excusable interruptions, not material and inexcusable breaches that frustrate the purpose of the lease. The traditional legal remedy, which requires the tenant to abandon the premises at their own peril, is hazardous and incomplete; equity provides a more adequate remedy by allowing a court to declare the tenant's rights before they are forced to vacate.
Analysis:
This decision significantly enhances tenant protections by modernizing the doctrine of constructive eviction. It establishes that a tenant facing a landlord's material breach of essential obligations does not have to take the substantial risk of abandoning the property to assert their rights. By allowing tenants to seek a declaratory judgment in equity, the court provides a safer, more practical remedy that shifts the legal risk of determining a material breach from the tenant to the court. This precedent strengthens the tenant's position in disputes over essential services and discourages landlords from neglecting their core duties under a lease.
Unlock the full brief for Charles E. Burt, Inc. v. Seven Grand Corp.