§ 74

Citation: § 74
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

2,559 chars

performance based on events that simply diminish profits. See Bouchard v. Blunt, 579 A.2d 261,
263 n.3 (Me. 1990) (concluding that additional costs did not render performance impracticable);
Hoyt v. Tapley, 121 Me. 239, 247-48, 116 A. 559 (1922) (affirming a jury verdict based on the failure
of the defendant to deliver potatoes and rejecting the argument that weather conditions rendered
performance impossible because “[t]he rule that if a thing becomes physically impossible by the act
of God, performance is excused, does not prevail, when the essential purpose of the contract may be
accomplished”); Elsemore v. Inhabitants of Hancock, 137 Me. 243, 249, 18 A.2d 692 (1941) (citing
with approval authority in which a school shutdown due to contagious disease did not excuse the
school from its contractual obligation to pay a teacher); Cohen v. Morneault, 120 Me. 358, 361-62,
114 A. 307 (1921) (destruction of one source of potatoes to fulfill a contractual obligation did not
relieve the supplier of its obligation to perform). See generally 14 Timothy Murray, Corbin on
Contracts § 77.4 (2021) (“To justify a discharge, the lessee must show that the frustration of purpose
is severe. Inconvenience, unprofitability, and unexpected income reductions or cost increases will
usually not suffice.”); Timothy Murray, Corbin on Contracts: Force Majeure and Impossibility of
Performance Resulting from COVID-19 § 1.03[2][D] (“If the business has not been totally shut down,
most COVID-19 decisions handed down during the first year of the pandemic have not afforded
relief.”).
     7RDR Enterprises argues that Oak Street may not challenge the District Court’s decision as to
which party is entitled to possession of the property because it claims that Oak Street waived that
challenge by not raising the issue of possession at the hearing before the District Court. This issue
was directly before the District Court, however, because, under the FED statute for commercial
leases, the District Court decides “the right of possession” and “the amount of rent owed.” 14 M.R.S.
§ 6017(2) (2022). Determining whether there has been a breach of the lease agreement and which
party is entitled to immediate possession of the property is the primary function of the District Court
in an FED case. See Tozier v. Tozier, 437 A.2d 645, 647 (Me. 1981); see also 14 M.R.S. § 6001(1)
(2022); Rubin v. Josephson, 478 A.2d 665, 667 (Me. 1984). Accordingly, the issue of whether
RDR Enterprises’ failure to pay rent results in termination of the lease is properly before us.

Other Sections in This Document (197)

Full Text