Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)

Citation: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Parent Document: Azar v. Quinn, 1 Mass. L. Rptr. 519 (1994)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 1994-01-15
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8351304/azar-v-quinn/ ↗

Full Text

1,807 chars

On or about the last business day in July 1987 or the first business day in August 1987, Camiel brought Azar and Ilderem to Cohen’s office in Cambridge to discuss the plaintiffs subleasing the Space from Pleasures. At the meeting a negotiation ensued over the amount of the total rent to be paid by the plaintiffs. Cohen initially wanted the plaintiffs to pay $2000 per month plus certain utilities. The plaintiffs protested that Camiel had represented that their total rent would be $2000 per month including utilities. Camiel sided with the plaintiffs and Cohen finally told the plaintiffs that he would agree to $2000 per month including utilities. The plaintiffs indicated that they wished to open for business in early September and that time was of the essence to them. At no time during this meeting did Azar or Ilderem inquire as to the status of Pleasures’ tenancy at the Premises. Neither Camiel nor Cohen brought up Pleasures’ status as a tenant at will or the eviction proceeding settlement of April 29, 1987 which provided that Camiel would use her best efforts to sell Pleasures. (Exhibit 8.) Cohen did, however, explicitly state that the plaintiffs would be subleasing space from Pleasures for a term of years pursuant to a forthcoming written sublease. Both plaintiffs testified that they believed that Pleasures was an established business that would be carrying on its business activities at the Premises in a status quo manner. Both Camiel and Cohen stood to benefit financially from having the plaintiffs sublease space at Pleasures. Both of the individual plaintiffs testified that had they been advised at this meeting of the true nature of Pleasures’ tenancy and of the potential change in ownership, the plaintiffs would have abandoned their intent to sublease space at the Premises.

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text