At the time the lease was made there was a gravel field area south of the building with room for about 15 cars. About 6 to 7 spots per day were required for employee parking. By paragraph 18 of the lease, respondents were to move the fence on the *274north side of the premises to create an additional row of parking, which Bond testified would have created 7 to 10 additional spaces. The seating/parking ratio is one parking space for every four restaurant seats — a need for about 66 spaces total. Appellant had an option to extend the lease or to purchase the property, and was informed by respondents that there was a lack of proper zoning for parking. Paragraph 7 of the lease provided, “ * * * If Lessor is .not in compliance with all zoning laws, ordinances and other restrictions, it shall take immediate action, at its sole expense, to comply with said zoning laws, ordinances or restrictions. In the event that Lessor fails to comply with said zoning laws, ordinances or restrictions within 120 days, Lessee shall have as its sole remedy, the right to cancel this lease.” [Italics added.] As to this clause, Bond testified that the option to purchase had to do with its insertion: “ * * * and that’s why we were adamant to make that part of the lease, that the zoning would be received, the proper zoning.” In accordance with paragraph 7, the lease was terminated by appellant in September, 1982, for failure to get the parking zoning, the termination being effective September 30, 1979.