Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks, 580 N.W.2d 46 (1998)

Citation
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks, 580 N.W.2d 46 (1998)
Parent Document
Cloverdale Foods of Minnesota, Inc. v. Snacks, 580 N.W.2d 46 (1998)
Jurisdiction
Minnesota (state)
Effective Date
1998-06-09

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text

848 chars
Pioneer presented evidence that it was working with city inspectors to bring the plant into compliance with city regulations and that no significant problems existed. Pioneer also presented evidence that Huether orally approved the changes before they were made. Finally, the lease provided that Cloverdale could not unreasonably withhold consent to improvements, and Pioneer presented evidence that many of the alterations were required to comply with USDA regulations. The evidence was sufficient to raise a fact question regarding whether Pioneer materially breached the lease agreement. Juvland v. Plaisance, 255 Minn. 262, 269-70, 96 N.W.2d 537, 542 (1959) (fact question raised *50concerning whether party materially or substantially breached a contract). The trial court did not err in denying Cloverdale’s motion for a directed verdict. II.