Smith v. Roberts
370 N.E.2d 271, 12 Ill. Dec. 648, 54 Ill. App. 3d 910 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A lease may be terminated under the doctrine of commercial frustration when an unforeseeable event, which the parties implicitly assumed would not occur, destroys the essential purpose of the contract, rendering the value of one party's performance totally or nearly totally worthless.
Facts:
- The Smiths (landlords) and Roberts Brothers (tenant) entered into a lease for the first floor and basement of a property in Springfield.
- Roberts Brothers, a men's clothing store, was already operating in the building directly next to the leased premises.
- The parties intended for Roberts Brothers to create an opening through the shared wall to connect the two spaces.
- The leased premises was to be used as a new department for Roberts Brothers' main store, called the 'Gas Light Room.'
- After the lease was executed, Roberts Brothers' main store building was completely destroyed by a fire.
- The adjacent premises leased from the Smiths suffered only minor smoke damage and was not destroyed.
- Following the fire, Roberts Brothers did not reoccupy the leased premises.
Procedural Posture:
- The Smiths (landlords) filed a lawsuit against Roberts Brothers (tenant) in an Illinois trial court for breach of the lease agreement.
- Roberts Brothers filed a counterclaim against the Smiths, asking the court for a determination that the lease was terminated.
- The trial court found in favor of Roberts Brothers, holding that the destruction of the main store excused performance and terminated the lease under the doctrine of commercial frustration.
- The Smiths, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
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 the complete destruction by fire of a tenant's main store, which was intended to be operated in conjunction with an adjacent leased premises, constitute commercial frustration sufficient to terminate the lease for the undamaged adjacent premises?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Mills
Yes, the destruction of the tenant's main store constitutes commercial frustration that terminates the lease. The doctrine applies when an unforeseeable event thwarts the object of the contract. The court applied a two-part test: (1) the frustrating event was not reasonably foreseeable, and (2) the value of the lessor's counterperformance was totally or nearly totally destroyed. First, the court found that the complete destruction of the main store while leaving the leased premises intact was a remote contingency and not a reasonably foreseeable event that the parties should have provided for in the lease. Second, the value of the Smiths' counterperformance (providing the leased space) was nearly totally destroyed because the premises was never intended to be autonomous. Its entire purpose was integrated with the main store, and operating it as a self-sufficient entity would require drastic changes contrary to the parties' original intent. Therefore, the existence of the main store was an implied condition of the lease, and its destruction frustrated the lease's purpose.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the commercial frustration doctrine to lease agreements in Illinois, even when the leased premises itself remains physically intact. The ruling emphasizes that the court will look beyond the four corners of the lease to the intended purpose and surrounding circumstances of the agreement. It establishes that the destruction of an adjacent, functionally integrated property can serve as a frustrating event sufficient to discharge contractual duties. This precedent broadens the scope of the doctrine from events that make performance impossible to events that make the foundational purpose of the performance moot.
