From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Friendly Ice Cream Corporation v. Beckner
Supreme Court of Virginia
597 S.E.2d 34 (2004)
In 1976, Beatrice Beckner (plaintiff) and her husband entered into a 15-year commercial-lease agreement with Friendly Ice Cream Corporation (Friendly) (defendant), under which Friendly was permitted to build and operate a retail ice-cream store on land owned by the Beckners. A Friendly subsidiary, FriendCo Restaurants, Inc. (FriendCo) (defendant), operated the store. The lease required the defendants to pay monthly rent as well as percentage rent, an annual payment based on a percentage of income generated by the store. Prior to the expiration of the lease, the defendants decided to close the store. Sandra Hughes, a FriendCo executive, approached the Beckners, seeking their consent to assign the lease to Riggs Bank, N.A. (Riggs). Riggs wanted to demolish the ice-cream store and construct a bank on the property. Subsequently, Beatrice’s husband died. Hughes initially worked with Beatrice, who was 80 years old, to amend the lease agreement. Later, Beatrice instructed Hughes to sort out the details with her attorney. Other individuals assisted Beatrice with the negotiations, including her son, her insurance agent, another lawyer, and a long-time friend. After some significant confusion regarding with whom Hughes should work, Beatrice and Hughes executed an amended agreement that assigned the lease to Riggs in exchange for a modest increase in base rent. However, Beatrice’s son claimed that the rent amount was well below fair market value and that Hughes had taken advantage of Beatrice. Beatrice filed suit against the defendants, seeking rescission of the amended lease on the grounds of gross inadequacy of consideration and undue influence. The trial court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Following a hearing, the trial court entered a decree in favor of Beatrice, concluding that the amended lease was the product of undue influence. The trial court rescinded the amended lease. The defendants appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lacy, J.)
What to do next…
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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 222,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.