From our private database of 33,800+ case briefs...
Reldresal v. Bolgolam
High Court of Lilliput
678 Swift 2d 910 (2001)
Reldresal (plaintiff) owns property in the town of Belfaborac. On March 15, 1997, Reldresal entered a ten-year lease with Bolgolam (defendant). The terms of the lease did not indicate the purpose for which Bolgolam would use the property, but Bolgolam intended to open a bar and restaurant in the building. Reldresal was not only aware of his intent, but also assisted Bolgolam in renovating the building for use as a bar and restaurant. Reldresal’s property, however, was located in an area of Belfaborac in which commercial use of property was prohibited by Belfaborac ordinance. The ordinance provided for variances, by which an owner could escape the ordinance upon showing a special hardship if it were strictly enforced. Bolgolam did not apply for a variance. But officials were lax about enforcing the ordinance, and Bolgolam proceeded to open the bar and restaurant without problems. Once in business, the bar produced most of Bolgolam’s large profit margin, although it only took up a small portion of the property. In November 1998, the county voted to enact a new ordinance prohibiting the sale of alcoholic beverages over four percent alcohol. This ordinance was strictly enforced, and, as a result, Bolgolam was unable to sell spirits and wines, causing his profits to decrease sharply. Once patrons could no longer order these drinks with their meals, restaurant sales dropped as well. Bolgolam was eventually forced to downsize his staff and let his chef go. The resulting decline in quality of service and food eventually forced Bolgolam to close the restaurant and bar. When he failed to pay rent, Reldresal brought suit to recover rental payments in March 1999. Bolgolam argued that the lease was not valid when executed and that, in the alternative, supervening events made the lease illegal and unenforceable. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Reldresal.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Balmuff, J.)
Concurrence/Dissent (Frelock, 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 606,000 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
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 606,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,800 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.