J.C. Penney Co. v. Giant Eagle, Inc.
1996 WL 279183, 85 F.3d 120 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under modern contract principles governing shopping center leases, a restrictive covenant granting a tenant an exclusive right to conduct a certain type of business is interpreted according to the parties' intent and can be enforced against a subsequent tenant who had constructive notice of the original lease, even if the right is continued in a new lease executed after the subsequent tenant's lease.
Facts:
- In 1962, Thrift Drug Company leased a store in the Quaker Village shopping center with a lease granting it the exclusive right to operate a pharmacy for a 15-year term with three 5-year renewal options.
- A memorandum of the 1962 lease, which did not mention the exclusive-use covenant, was publicly recorded.
- In 1969, J.C. Penney Company acquired Thrift Drug and all its rights under the 1962 lease.
- In 1977, Giant Eagle, Inc. leased a space in the same shopping center to operate a supermarket; at the time, Giant Eagle did not operate pharmacies in any of its stores.
- In 1978, Penney negotiated a new lease to relocate within the shopping center, expressly continuing its exclusive pharmacy right. This new lease was structured to terminate the 1962 lease one day after the new lease term began, ensuring continuity of the right.
- In 1990, Giant Eagle planned to add a pharmacy to its store.
- The shopping center owner, Stanley Gumberg, informed Giant Eagle that Penney held the exclusive pharmacy right and refused to waive it.
- In August 1992, despite this knowledge, Giant Eagle opened a pharmacy in its Quaker Village store.
Procedural Posture:
- J.C. Penney Company sued Giant Eagle, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, seeking an injunction.
- The district court granted Penney a preliminary injunction.
- Giant Eagle appealed the preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which affirmed.
- Following the appeal, the district court granted Penney a permanent injunction against Giant Eagle.
- Giant Eagle appealed the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 tenant's exclusive-use covenant in a shopping center lease, which is continued from an earlier recorded lease into a new lease, bind a subsequent tenant who signed its own lease before the new lease was executed?
Opinions:
Majority - Gibson, J.
Yes, the exclusive-use covenant binds the subsequent tenant. Pennsylvania law interprets shopping center leases using contract principles to give effect to the parties' intent, rather than applying strict real estate law. The court found clear intent between Penney and the landlord to continue the exclusive pharmacy right from the 1962 lease into the 1978 lease, demonstrated by the negotiations and the one-day overlap between the two leases. Giant Eagle had constructive notice of this right because the recorded memorandum of the 1962 lease put them on notice of all of its provisions, including the exclusive right. The court reasoned that under Pennsylvania's recording statute, the term 'purchaser' includes lessees, meaning Giant Eagle was legally considered to have notice of the full contents of Penney's original lease and was bound by the logical continuation and extension of those rights.
Dissenting - Stapleton, J.
No, the exclusive right is not enforceable against Giant Eagle beyond the original maximum term of the 1962 lease. A subsequent tenant can only be bound by restrictions of which it had notice when it signed its lease. In 1977, Giant Eagle had notice, at most, of an exclusive right that expired in 1993. The landlord and Penney could not later agree to extend this restriction and retroactively limit Giant Eagle's rights without its consent. To bind a co-tenant to an extension beyond the original, recorded maximum term is equivalent to binding them to a covenant of which they had no notice at all.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the shift in Pennsylvania law from treating commercial leases under rigid property law principles to more flexible contract law principles, where the intent of the parties is paramount. It establishes that a recorded lease memorandum provides constructive notice of all terms within the full lease, not just the information in the memorandum itself. This strengthens the position of anchor tenants with exclusive-use covenants, allowing them to preserve these rights through new leases, while placing a heavier burden on subsequent tenants to conduct thorough due diligence on all existing leases in a shopping center.
