Illinois Appellate Court
260 N.E.2d 321 (1970)
In December 1962, E. Weiman (plaintiff) entered an agreement with A. Goldsmith to provide coin-operated laundry facilities at Goldsmith’s residential apartment building. The written agreement was titled “Lease” and referred to the parties as “Lessor” and “Lessee.” The agreement rented the apartment’s laundry room to Weiman for a five-year period with an option to renew for an additional five years. Goldsmith agreed to provide any utilities needed to operate the laundry facilities. In turn, Goldsmith would receive 25 percent of Weiman’s gross receipts, which Weiman would pay every six months. The lease also provided exclusivity. Goldsmith would not allow the installation or operation of any other coin-operated laundry facilities at the apartment building during the lease term. Weiman installed and operated two washers and one dryer in the apartment building’s laundry room. A sign with Weiman’s name and telephone number was posted in the laundry room. In 1966, Butterman (defendant) purchased the apartment building from Goldsmith. The sale contract did not list Weiman as a tenant. Before the sale, Butterman did not speak to Weiman or see the agreement between Weiman and Goldsmith. Butterman did inspect the building, including the laundry room, prior to purchase, but Butterman did not ask about the laundry facilities. After the building was sold, Butterman replaced Weiman’s machines with a competitors’ machines. Weiman sued. Weiman alleged that the agreement between Weiman and Goldsmith was a lease, and Butterman had no right to replace the laundry facilities. Butterman argued that the agreement was a mere license that was not binding on subsequent purchasers. The trial court found for Weiman. Butterman appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Murphy, 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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 218,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.