Dover Shopping Center, Inc. v. Cushman's Sons, Inc.

164 A.2d 785 (1960)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Dover Shopping Center, Inc. v. Cushman’s Sons, Inc.

New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division
164 A.2d 785 (1960)

Play video


Cushman’s Sons, Inc. (Cushman’s) (defendant) entered into a written lease in 1956 with Dover Shopping Center, Inc. (Dover) (plaintiff). The lease obligated Cushman’s to operate its bakery business on the premises, to be open for regular business during customary hours, and to maintain its window displays in “an attractive and dignified manner.” The lease also provided for a minimum annual rent plus a shifting percentage of gross sales and for Dover to have the right to an injunction if Cushman’s breached the lease. Cushman’s opened its business in 1957. In 1959, Cushman’s informed Dover that Cushman’s was permanently ceasing operations because the enterprise was unprofitable, but would continue to pay the minimum rent. Dover filed suit for a mandatory injunction specifically directing Cushman’s to perform the covenants of operating a business during customary hours and maintaining the store window. The trial court granted the injunction, ordering Cushman’s to (1) reopen and resume its business, (2) display its name outside the premises, (3) keep the store open during customary business hours, and (4) have a manager or salesperson in charge. The trial court expressly stated that it gave no directions as to the method of operation or the quality of products or services. Cushman’s appealed, arguing that the injunction should have been denied because (1) money damages would be adequate and (2) specific performance of a contract requiring court supervision for a long period of time should not be granted. In reply, Dover argued that money damages would be difficult to ascertain for a percentage lease, particularly because the nature of a shopping center made each store’s success dependent on the operation of other stores. Dover further argued that recent court cases ordered specific performance where feasible, and that Dover did not seek judicial supervision of the conduct of Cushman’s in this case. Instead, Dover would rely on the self-interest of Cushman’s in maintaining its reputation to ensure that the business would be well conducted. Dover asked only that Cushman’s be required to keep its business open.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Goldmann, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 733,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 733,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership