Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Citation
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Parent Document
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Jurisdiction
- Missouri (state)
- Effective Date
- 1993-08-24
Other Sections in This Document (20)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
- Broken Heart Venture, L.P. v. A & F Restaurant Corp., 859 S.W.2d 282 (1993)
Full Text
1,165 charsIn its second point, A & F claims the trial court erred in striking A & F’s affirmative defenses and counterclaim. A & F contends these pleadings asserted A & F was in lawful possession of the premises, which is the “core issue” of an unlawful detainer action. A & F’s affirmative defenses and counterclaims raised the issues of fraudulent inducement, indebtedness for patio construction, failure to make proper and timely demand for rent, failure to state a claim, and unclean hands. In Count I of its counterclaim, A & F alleged it was fraudulently induced into signing the lease, and sought cancellation and rescission of the lease. In Count II, A & F sought reformation of the lease to reflect the intent of the parties, and amendment of the lease to *286provide a fair market rental in light of the misrepresentations. Count III of A & F’s counterclaim sought damages for breach of the lease obligations for patio construction and failure to erect a sign. In its brief, A & F characterizes its counterclaim (and its separate action) as asking for “reaffirmation” of the lease agreement. The prayers, however, seek rescission and reformation, not reaffirmation.