Rowe v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc.
Court of Appeals of New York
385 N.E.2d 566 (1978)
- Written by Ron Leshnower, JD
Facts
Robert Rowe (plaintiff) leased property to Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (A & P) (defendant), to use for a new location of its supermarket chain. The lease did not restrict any assignment. Years later, Rowe and A & P negotiated a new lease, which contained a percentage rental clause in addition to a base rental clause. The new lease also did not restrict A & P’s ability to assign the lease. After disappointing profits, A & P decided to close the store, and over Rowe’s objection, A & P assigned the lease to Southland Corp., another supermarket-chain operator. Rowe sued A & P for possession and damages, claiming that A & P breached an implied covenant against assignment of the lease without Rowe’s consent. A trial court dismissed the case, ruling that A & P had the right to assign the lease absent an express provision to the contrary. The court also found there was no implied covenant against assignment, because no reasonable landlord would have signed the lease without believing that A & P had the right to assign the lease. An appeals court reversed the trial court, ruling that the existence of a percentage rental clause indicated Rowe’s reliance upon characteristics specific to A & P, and thus the lease contained an implied covenant against assignment. A & P appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gabrielli, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 788,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 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.
