M. Leo Storch Limited Partnership v. Erol’s Inc.
Maryland Court of Special Appeals
95 Md. App. 253, 620 A.2d 408 (1993)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
M. Leo Storch Limited Partnership (Storch) (plaintiff) owned a Maryland shopping center. Erol’s Inc. (defendant) leased a portion of the shopping center to operate a store that earned a certain profit. The lease contract ran from 1984 to 1994 and required a fixed monthly payment by Erol’s. The lease also contained a clause that required Erol’s to continuously operate its store during the lease term “with due diligence and efficiency so as to produce all of the gross sales” that could be diligently produced (the continuous-operation clause). Erol’s sold and rented televisions, video cameras, videotapes, movies, and accessories. The operation of Erol’s required a manager, an assistant manager, two part-time managers, and two part-time associates. Managers had to understand the financial operations of the business, and employees had to be knowledgeable about movies. In 1990, Erol’s began operating at a loss, and losses were projected to continue. Financial issues were facing other stores in the video-rental industry. Erol’s decided that it would close its store. Storch sued Erol’s to enforce the continuous-operation clause of the lease contract and sought an injunction to stop Erol’s from closing its store. The trial court denied injunctive relief based on finding an unlikelihood of success on the merits. Storch appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bishop, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.