Winternitz v. Summit Hills Joint Venture
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland
532 A.2d 1089 (1987)
Winternitz (plaintiff) leased retail space from Summit Hills Joint Venture (Summit) (defendant). Summit employed a management company to manage the property, of which Frank was an officer and Harris was a property manager. Winternitz met with Frank to discuss renewal of the lease. Winternitz informed Frank that he intended to sell the company and inquired if there would be any objection to assigning the renewed lease. Frank said there would be no objection if the assignee was financially sound. Harris delivered a proposed, two-year lease with a renewal option to Winternitz. Winternitz agreed to its terms, including paying a higher rent per month. However, the proposed lease contained the word “SAMPLE” on the first and last pages and neither Harris nor Winternitz signed it. Harris informed Winternitz that there was no one available to sign at the time and instructed him to simply pay the increased rent and someone would sign the lease at some point in time. Winternitz paid the higher rent for at least one month. Winternitz later signed a contract to sell his business to the Suhs for $70,000. The contract stated that entering into the lease was a contingency of the contract. Harris reviewed the Suhs’ financial affairs and stated that she foresaw no problems with transferring the lease. Frank informed Winternitz that, as far as he knew, everything was okay with the proposed transfer. However, Frank later informed Winternitz that he had changed his mind and intended to negotiate his own lease with the Suhs. Frank informed Winternitz that he would neither renew Winternitz’s lease nor allow a transfer. A broker assisting Winternitz with selling the business spoke with Frank after learning that the lease would not be renewed. Frank told the broker “that under no circumstances would he give [Winternitz] a lease. He wants that man to walk out of that store without a dime.” Frank also informed the broker that he would give the Suhs a lease only if Winternitz “walks out with nothing.” Harris delivered an eviction notice to Winternitz. Due to his inability to transfer the lease, Winternitz renegotiated his contract with the Suhs. The purchase price of the renegotiated contract was $15,000. Winternitz filed suit, claiming breach of an oral contract, breach of the renewal and assignment leases, and interference with a contractual relationship. The jury returned a verdict in Winternitz’s favor. The trial judge granted a judgment N.O.V., holding that the Statute of Frauds made the lease renewal unenforceable. Winternitz appealed to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wilner, 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 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 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.