Aigner v. Cowell Sales Co.
Colorado Supreme Court
660 P.2d 907 (1983)
- Written by Jayme Weber, JD
Facts
Phillip Aigner (defendant) leased shopping-center space from Cowell Sales Co. (Cowell) (plaintiff) to run a laundry. The lease contained a termination clause stating that if Aigner defaulted on his monthly rent payments, then Cowell could terminate the lease, notify Aigner, and take back the premises three days later. The lease also contained a separate provision stating that if Aigner vacated the premises, then Cowell could take back the space without terminating the lease. In that case, Cowell would be entitled to compensatory damages for the time remaining under Aigner’s lease. Within the first year of the lease, Aigner fell behind on his rent. Cowell sent Aigner a letter demanding that, within three days, Aigner either pay the rent or vacate the premises. Aigner took his property and left. Cowell re-leased the space three months later. Then Cowell sued Aigner to recover: (1) the rent Aigner had failed to pay prior to Cowell’s letter and (2) the rent for the three months between Cowell’s letter and the re-leasing of the space. The trial court awarded Cowell damages for both time periods. Aigner appealed, arguing that Cowell’s letter terminated the lease agreement, thereby freeing Aigner from any obligation to pay rent after the letter’s date. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s judgment. Aigner appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rovira, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.