From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...
Westhaven Associates, Ltd. v. C.C. of Madison, Inc.
Wisconsin Court of Appeals
652 N.W.2d 819 (2002)
C.C. of Madison, Inc. (Cost Cutters) (defendant) leased space from Westhaven Associates, Ltd. (Westhaven) (plaintiff) at the Westhaven Village Shopping Center for 10 years. The lease provided a provision allowing Westhaven to recover attorney’s fees for any expenses incurred in reletting the space if Cost Cutters broke the lease. The lease also provided two provisions that served as liquidated damages clauses. These provisions provided that, in the event of Cost Cutters’s breach, Westhaven could recoup “any deficiency…between the amount for which the premises were relet, less expense of reletting, including all necessary repairs and alterations and reasonable attorney’s fees and the rent provided hereunder.” The lease also provided a mitigation clause that applied to the provisions, as well as other clauses in the contract, though it was not contained within the provisions themselves. After about one and a half years of occupancy, Cost Cutters closed its store without Westhaven’s approval. Just before Cost Cutters departed, Westhaven’s occupancy rate was 53 percent. Shortly after its departure, Westhaven’s occupancy rate rose to 72 percent. About a year and a half after Cost Cutters’s departure, Westhaven was able to relet the space. Westhaven filed suit against Cost Cutters. Westhaven sought to recover its attorney’s fees incurred in its suit against Cost Cutters. Westhaven also sought to recover stipulated damages, as provided by the provisions in the contract. Westhaven presented testimony from one of its representatives showing that a shopping center, when a business leaves, loses more than the rent paid by that business. This evidence showed that the shopping center loses the customers of that business, which then do not become the foot traffic for other businesses in the shopping center, placing those other businesses in danger of going out of business or breaking leases themselves. Westhaven additionally provided testimony from other tenants of the shopping center that Cost Cutters’s departure harmed their own businesses. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The trial court ruled that Westhaven was entitled to recover attorney’s fees, as provided in the contract. However, the trial court ruled that the liquidated damages provisions were unreasonable and therefore unenforceable. Both parties appealed to the Wisconsin Court of Appeals.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Lundsten, 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 199,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.