Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)

Citation: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Parent Document: Rathbun v. Cato Corp., 93 S.W.3d 771 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Missouri (state)
Effective Date: 2002-11-21
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1890960/rathbun-v-cato-corp/ ↗

Full Text

1,060 chars

In support of this point, Lessor points out that the sentence in the Inducement provision of the Lease dealing with abatement of rent says that “[djuring the period of such major anchor tenant’s vacancy,” Lessee may abate monthly fixed rent and other charges, and in lieu thereof pay Lessor “an amount equal to one-half (1/2) of the monthly fixed rent that would otherwise be due under this lease.” Lessor highlights the fact that this sentence applies “[djuring the period of’ the vacancy of the space previously occupied by the anchor tenant, and argues that the failure to substitute a similar type and size business for the vacating tenant only gives Lessee the right to cancel the lease. According to Lessor, Consumers’ vacancy expired once Sutherland’s began occupying the space, as did Lessee’s opportunity to abate to half-rents. In summary, Lessor argues that the “period of such major anchor tenant’s vacancy” provision in the Inducement provision giving Lessee the right to abate rent only applies until any new tenant occupies the Consumers’ space.

Other Sections in This Document (144)

Full Text