Shell Oil Co. v. Marinello
New Jersey Supreme Court
63 N.J. 402, 307 A.2d 598 (1973)
Facts
In 1959, Frank Marinello (plaintiff) entered into an agreement with Shell Oil Company (defendant) to lease and operate a Shell service station. At the same time, Shell and Marinello entered into a dealer agreement that provided that Shell would supply Shell products to Marinello for resale at the Shell service station operated by Marinello. The lease was regularly renewed. In 1969, the lease was renewed for a three-year term from April 1969 through May 1972, becoming a year-to-year lease after May 1972. The lease was subject to termination by Marinello at any time with ninety days’ notice and by Shell at the end of the three-year period with thirty days’ notice. The dealer agreement was likewise regularly renewed to coincide with the time period of the lease agreement and was subject to termination at any time with ten days’ notice. In April 1972, Shell notified Marinello that it was terminating the lease and dealer agreements effective May 1972. Marinello sued. The court sided with Marinello, ruling that the lease and dealer agreement contained an implied covenant by Shell not to terminate the agreements without good cause. The court also held that Marinello had substantially performed obligations to Shell required under the agreements and that Shell did not have good cause to terminate the agreements. Shell appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sullivan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 688,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 43,000 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.
