Cottonwood Mall Co. v. Sine
767 P.2d 499, 95 Utah Adv. Rep. 11, 1988 Utah LEXIS 118 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An agreement to renew a lease upon unspecified 'reasonable terms' is unenforceable for being too vague and indefinite, as courts will not create an agreement for parties by determining essential terms such as rent and duration.
Facts:
- In 1961, Sidney Horman, as lessor, entered into a 20-year lease for bowling lanes in the Cottonwood Mall with S.W. Pugsley, with the lease set to expire in September 1981.
- In 1979, Wesley F. Sine was considering purchasing the bowling business and had his agents inquire with Horman about renewing the lease.
- Horman told Sine's agents he would be willing to renew the lease on 'reasonable terms' but would not sign a new agreement until closer to the expiration date.
- Relying on Horman's assurances, Sine purchased the bowling business for $338,000 and took an assignment of the existing lease.
- After the purchase and before making improvements, Sine again received assurances from Horman that the lease would be renewed on reasonable terms at its expiration.
- Based on these representations, Sine invested an additional $10,000 to $20,000 in remodeling the leased space.
- Horman's interest as lessor was later assigned to Cottonwood Mall Co.
- Prior to the lease's expiration, Cottonwood Mall Co. informed Sine that the lease would terminate and convert to a month-to-month tenancy, subsequently increased the rent, and then terminated the tenancy when negotiations for a new lease failed.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Cottonwood Mall Co. filed an action in a Utah trial court to recover possession of the leased premises from defendant Wesley F. Sine.
- Sine counterclaimed, seeking to enforce an alleged oral agreement by the previous landlord to renew the lease.
- The trial court denied Sine's counterclaim and entered judgment for Cottonwood Mall Co., awarding it the reasonable rental value for the holdover period.
- The trial court, however, denied Cottonwood Mall Co.'s request for attorney fees.
- Sine, as defendant-appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment against his counterclaim to the Supreme Court of Utah.
- Cottonwood Mall Co., as plaintiff-appellee, filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's denial of its attorney fees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is an oral promise to renew a commercial lease on 'reasonable terms' sufficiently definite to be an enforceable contract?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Howe
No. An oral promise to renew a lease on 'reasonable terms' is too vague and indefinite to be enforceable. Citing precedent from Pingree v. Continental Group of Utah, Inc., the court affirmed the majority rule that an agreement to renew a lease must specify essential terms like the duration and rent with sufficient definiteness. An 'agreement to agree' is not a contract. The court reasoned that it is not equipped to make business judgments or impose 'paternalistic agreements' on parties by determining what constitutes 'reasonable' commercial terms, especially in a fluctuating market. Therefore, the court cannot create a contract where the parties themselves failed to reach a meeting of the minds on essential elements.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the fundamental contract law principle that essential terms must be definite for an agreement to be enforceable. It confirms that Utah courts will not enforce 'agreements to agree,' thereby providing certainty to contracting parties, particularly in commercial leasing. The ruling underscores the risk for parties who rely on vague, oral assurances for future agreements, even when such reliance leads to significant financial investment. For future cases, this precedent solidifies that lessees must secure renewal options with specific terms (rent, duration) in writing to ensure enforceability, as courts are unwilling to substitute their judgment for the parties' own negotiations.
Unlock the full brief for Cottonwood Mall Co. v. Sine