Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)

Citation: Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)
Parent Document: Klein v. Auto Parcel Delivery Co., 192 Ky. 583 (1921)
Jurisdiction: Kentucky (state)
Effective Date: 1921-10-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7234399/klein-v-auto-parcel-delivery-co/ ↗

Full Text

871 chars

Of course, if the lease prescribes a condition precedent to the exercise of the privilege by .the lessee, such as the giving of notice within a specified time before the expiration of the first term, such condition must be complied with, or it must be waived by the lessor, whether the priv*586ilege be one “to renew” or “to extend” the original term. Of the courts recognizing the distinction between a privilege “to renew” and one “to extend” many of them, including this one, as will be seen from the cases supra, hold that the technical difference may be controlled by the intention of the parties as manifested by something appearing in the lease, or by their conduct before the controversy arose, and that the privilege may thus be construed as one to extend the term although the language employed is one ‘ to renew” it. Thus, in the Kozy Theatre case, it is said:

Other Sections in This Document (21)

Full Text