Dover Shopping Center, Inc. v. Cushman's Sons, Inc.
164 A.2d 785 (1960)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court of equity may grant a mandatory injunction to enforce a continuous operation clause in a commercial percentage lease, particularly in a shopping center, where the legal remedy of damages is inadequate and the required performance is not so complex as to necessitate overly burdensome long-term judicial supervision.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1956, Dover Shopping Center, Inc. (Dover) and Cushman's Sons, Inc. (Cushman's) entered into a written lease for a retail bakery space in Dover's shopping center.
- The lease provided for a minimum annual rent of $7,000 plus a percentage of gross sales exceeding that minimum.
- Paragraph Third of the lease contained a 'continuous operation clause' that required Cushman's to operate its business in the premises and keep the store open during customary business hours.
- Cushman's began operating its bakery on September 25, 1957.
- On April 4, 1959, Cushman's ceased operations, initially claiming it was closing for alterations.
- On May 1, 1959, Cushman's informed Dover that it was permanently closing the store because it was unprofitable, though it continued to pay the minimum rent.
- Cushman's alleged it was induced to sign the lease by Dover's unfulfilled promises about future developments, such as the construction of a department store, a theatre, and expanded parking.
Procedural Posture:
- Dover Shopping Center, Inc. (plaintiff) filed a complaint against Cushman's Sons, Inc. (defendant) in the Chancery Division, a trial court in New Jersey.
- Dover sought a mandatory injunction to compel Cushman's to reopen its store and comply with the continuous operation clause of its lease.
- Cushman's filed a counterclaim seeking rescission of the lease, alleging fraudulent inducement.
- The Chancery Division granted the mandatory injunction for Dover and dismissed Cushman's counterclaim.
- The Chancery Division granted a stay of the injunction, which was later vacated by the Appellate Division.
- Cushman's Sons, Inc., as defendant-appellant, appealed the Chancery Division's judgment to the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
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 court of equity have the power to grant a mandatory injunction to compel a tenant to resume its business operations as required by a continuous operation clause in a percentage lease, despite the traditional reluctance to order specific performance that requires ongoing supervision?
Opinions:
Majority - Goldmann, S.J.A.D.
Yes. A court can grant a mandatory injunction to enforce a continuous operation clause in a commercial lease under these circumstances. First, the court rejected Cushman's defense of fraudulent inducement. The alleged misrepresentations were promises of future events, not statements of existing fact, which generally do not constitute actionable fraud. Furthermore, even if fraud existed, Cushman's was barred by the doctrine of laches because it continued to operate and pay rent for over a year after it would have known the promises were not being fulfilled, thereby affirming the contract. Second, the court found that the legal remedy of damages was inadequate. The harm to Dover was not merely the loss of potential percentage rent but also the unquantifiable damage to the shopping center's cooperative enterprise that results from a vacant storefront. Finally, the court held that enforcing the clause did not require burdensome supervision. The injunction was narrowly tailored to require Cushman's only to reopen, maintain its sign, keep business hours, and staff the store, without dictating the specific methods of operation or quality of goods. This aligns with the modern tendency to grant specific performance where the legal remedy is inadequate and the difficulties of enforcement are not great.
Analysis:
This decision is significant for commercial real estate law, particularly in the context of shopping centers. It solidifies the enforceability of continuous operation clauses and demonstrates a judicial willingness to grant equitable remedies like specific performance where tenants are part of an interdependent commercial ecosystem. The ruling acknowledges that a tenant's value to a shopping center extends beyond rent payments to include generating foot traffic and contributing to the center's overall viability, harms that are difficult to quantify in money damages. By distinguishing between burdensome supervision of business details and enforceable directives to simply operate, the case provides a pathway for landlords to compel anchor or key tenants to honor their operational commitments, thereby protecting the synergistic value of the entire shopping center.
Unlock the full brief for Dover Shopping Center, Inc. v. Cushman's Sons, Inc.