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

1,366 chars

The gravamen of the plaintiffs’ deceit claim against Cohen and Camiel is that they offered to sublease space to the plaintiffs at the Premises for a term of years and failed to do so; that they led the plaintiffs to believe that Pleasures was a well established business that would continue to operate in a status quo manner when, in fact, the defendants were contemplating its sale; and that the plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the defendants’ misrepresentations and fragmentary representations to their financial detriment. It is clear from the record thatin August 1987 Cohen and Camiel offered to sublease space at the Premises from Pleasures to the plaintiffs for a term of years. It is equally clear that in August 1987 Pleasures was a mere tenant at will at the Premises and as such did not have the legal capacity to grant a sublease for a term of years. See D. A. Schulte, Inc. v. Brockton Y.M.C.A., 273 Mass. 335, 342 (1930) (a sublessee’s rights in real property derive from the rights of the lessor in the property, consequently a lessor can not transfer a greater interest in leased property than he himself holds). Thus Cohen’s and Camiel’s offer to have Pleasures sublease space to the plaintiffs for a term of years constitutes an affirmative false representation of a material fact: Pleasures’ legal capacity to sublease space for a term of years.

Other Sections in This Document (62)

Full Text