§ 17

Citation: § 17
Parent Document: 55 Oak Street LLC v. RDR Enterprises, Inc., 275 A.3d 316 (2022)
Jurisdiction: Maine (state)
Effective Date: 2022-05-24
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6471241/55-oak-street-llc-v-rdr-enterpr... ↗

Full Text

2,137 chars

3 Oak Street argues that there was no causal link between the force majeure event(s) and
RDR Enterprises’ inability to pay rent. Because we conclude that the District Court erred as a matter
of law in interpreting the contract, we need not reach this argument. We note, however, that most
courts that have addressed the issue of proximate cause in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
have required more than a barebones connection between the alleged force majeure event and a
party’s inability to pay rent. See Timothy Murray, Corbin on Contracts: Force Majeure and
Impossibility of Performance Resulting from COVID-19 § 1.03[2][D] (2021) (“Simply positing two
facts—that the pandemic has occurred, and that a party finds it very difficult or even impossible to
perform its contractual obligations—is not enough.”); Palm Springs Mile Assocs. v. Kirkland’s Stores,
Inc., No. 20-21724-Civ-Scola, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 163880, at *5 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2020) (“Kirkland
fails to explain how the governmental regulations it describes as a force majeure event resulted in its
inability to pay its rent.”); Future St. Ltd. v. Big Belly Solar, LLC, No. 20-cv-11020-DJC, 2020 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 136999, at *20 (D. Mass. July 31, 2020) (“Even assuming arguendo that the pandemic and
effects of [the] same are a force majeure[,] . . . Future Street has not shown that its failure to perform
its obligations under the Agreement were caused by [the] same.”); see also In re Cinemex USA Real
Est. Holdings, Inc., 627 B.R. 693, 701 & n.17 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021) (concluding that a theater’s
decision not to open due to economic concerns created by the COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse the
theater’s nonperformance under the doctrine of frustration of purpose). Also, here, the District Court
expressly found that because RDR Enterprises could have resumed indoor dining service on a limited
basis in June 2020, “its obligation to pay rent is not excused by the force majeure clause, at least
entirely.” This finding would appear to indicate that the indoor dining restrictions were not the
proximate cause of RDR Enterprises’ inability to pay rent.

Other Sections in This Document (197)

Full Text