Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

Kenford Co. v. County of Erie

Court of Appeals of New York
537 N.E.2d 176 (1989)


Facts

County of Erie (defendant) wished to finance and construct a sports stadium. Kenford Co. (Kenford) (plaintiff) had acquired options on land located in the county and proposed to sell the land to the county as a site for the stadium. The county declined the offer, but Kenford responded with a new offer that it would donate the land to the county if the county permitted Dome Stadium, Inc. (DSI) (plaintiff) to lease or manage the stadium. The county accepted the offer, and the parties entered into contract negotiations. Kenford exercised his option on the land. Kenford and the county executed a contract providing that Kenford would donate 178 acres of land to the county for construction of the stadium and necessary access roadways and that the county would begin construction within twelve months. The county also agreed to negotiate a forty-year lease with DSI for the operation of the facility in which the county would receive lease revenues of no less than $63.75 million from tax revenue from the operation of the site, rental payments, and increased property taxation revenue resulting from increased assessments on “the peripheral lands,” those owned or subsequently acquired by Kenford and located within the town in which the stadium was built over the course of the forty years. If a lease could not be agreed upon within three months, the county and DSI were to execute a twenty-year management agreement. The county solicited construction bids but were unable to obtain a bid for the amount that the county had appropriated for the project. The county adopted a resolution terminating the contract. Kenford and DSI brought a breach of contract action and sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages for the loss of appreciation value from the peripheral property. The trial court awarded damages and the county appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Mollen, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 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.

  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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.