Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)

Citation: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Parent Document: Aljabban v. Fontana Indoor Swap Meet, Inc. (2020)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2020-09-10
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4784084/aljabban-v-fontana-indoor-swap-... ↗

Full Text

1,624 chars

Aljabban next argues that the trial court should have found FISM and
Shapiro liable for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith
and fair dealing because their “official excuse for terminating Plaintiffs’
license or lease was something not in the contract—that Plaintiffs’ business
was not doing well.” Aljabban also contends that “Defendants also breached
the contract by failing to renew since plaintiffs paid their rent” as required by
the vendor’s permit.
      As we have explained, the trial court found that the evidence and the
contractual language did not support a finding that the parties agreed to a
yearly renewal as long as the rent was paid or that FISM required any
reason to decline to renew the vendor’s permit after the year-long term
expired. The trial court based its decision on the fact that the terms of
vendor’s permit “clearly reflect a term of one year” and “contain no language
whatsoever reflecting an obligation by FISM to automatically renew these
agreements from year to year.” Further, the trial court relied on evidence of
FISM’s “custom and practice of yearly re-renewal of license agreements for all
its vendors. Nothing was automatic so long as rent was paid.” The trial
                                       39
court also found that “the terms of the vendor license agreement did not
require a reason or cause to not renew the license.”
          Aljabban presents no basis for us to reverse the trial court on these
issues. Substantial evidence supports the trial court’s decision that FISM
had the right to deny renewal of the vendor’s permit without a reason and

Other Sections in This Document (85)

Full Text