Mutual Life Insurance v. Tailored Woman, Inc.
309 N.Y. 248 (1955)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent specific restrictive covenants in a percentage lease, a tenant may move a department to an adjacent, non-percentage rental space it also leases from the landlord, even if this action reduces the landlord's percentage rent, as the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not breached when a party is merely exercising its rights under the express terms of the agreement.
Facts:
- In 1939, The Tailored Woman, Inc. (tenant) entered into a ten-year percentage lease with the landlord for the three lower floors of 742 Fifth Avenue.
- The lease required a percentage rent on all sales 'on, in, and from the demised premises' and stipulated that the store would be maintained in a manner 'substantially similar' to the tenant's prior location, which included a fur department.
- In 1945, the tenant leased additional space on the fifth floor of the same building under a separate, flat-rate rental agreement for the sale of women's apparel.
- The tenant then made physical alterations, integrating the fifth floor with the lower three floors by modifying the elevators to serve all four floors as a single store.
- After integrating the spaces, the tenant moved its entire fur department from the main store (covered by the percentage lease) to the fifth floor (covered by the flat-rate lease).
- The tenant subsequently stopped paying percentage rent on fur sales, except for those initiated by salespeople on the lower floors who sent customers to the fifth-floor fur department and received a commission.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff-landlord sued the defendant-tenant in the trial court (Trial Term).
- The Trial Term found for the plaintiff-landlord.
- The defendant-tenant appealed to the Appellate Division, an intermediate appellate court.
- The Appellate Division reversed the judgment of the Trial Term, finding primarily for the defendant-tenant.
- The plaintiff-landlord appealed the Appellate Division's decision to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest 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 tenant under a percentage lease violate the lease by moving a department to an adjacent space in the same building that is covered by a separate, flat-rate lease, thereby reducing the gross sales subject to the percentage rent calculation?
Opinions:
Majority - Desmond, J.
No. A tenant does not violate a percentage lease by moving a department to an adjacent flat-rate rental space when the lease lacks specific restrictions against such a move. The landlord had the opportunity to insist on more restrictive covenants in both the original 1939 lease and the 1945 lease but failed to do so. Absent fraud or trickery, the tenant was free to conduct its business as it saw fit within the broad terms of the leases. While the landlord may not have foreseen the integration of the floors, this lack of foresight does not create new obligations for the tenant. The implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is not violated when a party is simply exercising its contractual rights. Therefore, only sales demonstrably originating 'from' the main premises, such as those where lower-floor salespeople earned commissions, are subject to the percentage rent.
Dissenting - Burke, J.
Yes. The tenant violated both express and implied covenants of the lease. All fur sales should be considered made 'on, in or from' the main premises because the tenant integrated the spaces and held the entire operation out to the public as a single store at 742 Fifth Avenue. More importantly, every percentage lease contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, obligating the tenant to conduct its business with regard for the landlord's interest in gross receipts. By moving a major department to a non-percentage space solely to avoid paying the percentage rent, the tenant engaged in an unconscionable diversion of business that destroyed the landlord's right to receive the fruits of the contract.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces a textualist approach to contract interpretation, placing a heavy burden on landlords to draft highly specific restrictive covenants in percentage leases. It limits the application of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, clarifying that the covenant cannot be used to create obligations that are not supported by the contract's express terms. The ruling signals to commercial landlords that they must anticipate and explicitly prohibit tenant actions, such as relocating departments to adjacent non-percentage spaces, if they wish to protect their percentage rental income. This case serves as a key precedent against implying restrictive use covenants where none are written.
Unlock the full brief for Mutual Life Insurance v. Tailored Woman, Inc.