King v. Limestone Valley Enterprises, L.P.

Dominic Rappucci (defendant) was a tenant in the Lantana Square Shopping Center (center), which was owned by Limestone Valley Enterprises, L.P. (Limestone) (defendant). Since becoming a tenant in 1992, Rappucci had operated a salon that offered hair cutting, hair styling, and nail services. In 1996, Dorothy King (plaintiff) began considering opening a day spa in the center. King and Rappucci had once been colleagues. She met with him several times to discuss her possible business venture. She told him that she did not want to open a spa in the center if it meant competing with an existing tenant and requested assurances that her planned spa services would not conflict with services offered by Rappucci’s salon. Rappucci assured King that the salon did not currently offer any spa services and that he had no intention of ever offering such services. The lease King subsequently negotiated with Limestone in 1997 included a spa addendum stating that King had the exclusive right to offer tanning, facials, massage, body treatments, waxing, electrolysis, and make-up services at the center. The addendum expressly stated that it did not impact leases executed before King’s lease. For three years, King’s spa and Rappucci’s salon coexisted amicably. However, in 2000, Rappucci expanded his lease space to include the property next door to the salon and planned to expand the salon’s offerings to include certain spa services. King sued Rappucci and Limestone, seeking an injunction preventing the salon from offering services that competed with King’s spa. King offered two arguments in support. First, she argued that the salon’s addition of spa services would breach the spa addendum. Second, King argued that promissory estoppel should bar Rappucci from adding spa services because she had reasonably relied on Rappucci’s assurances that he would not offer such services. The court considered whether to grant the requested injunction.