Toys, Inc. v. F.M. Burlington Company
Vermont Supreme Court
582 A.2d 123 (1990)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Toys, Inc. (Toys) (plaintiffs) entered into a five-year lease agreement with F.M. Burlington Company (Burlington) (defendant) to rent retail space in Burlington’s mall. The agreement provided Toys an option to renew the lease term for an additional five years at the end of the original lease term. Additionally, upon renewal, a new rental amount would be “renegotiated to the then prevailing rate within the mall.” At the end of the fourth year, Toys timely provided Burlington with written notice of its intent to exercise the option and renew the space for another five years, called the “renewal period.” Shortly thereafter, Burlington provided Toys with the new rental amount Toys was required to pay. Toys responded that its renewal had been premised on a substantially different understanding of the prevailing rate. For nearly a year, the parties unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a rent structure for the renewal period. Eventually, Burlington informed Toys that it was listing Toys’ space for lease to another company. Toys left the mall, found other retail space, and brought suit against Burlington for breach of contract. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Toys and held that the lease agreement had created a binding option enforceable against Burlington. Burlington appealed, arguing that the option was too indefinite. The Vermont Supreme Court granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Dooley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 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.