Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)

Citation: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Parent Document: Wesson v. Leone Enterprises, Inc., 437 Mass. 708 (2002)
Jurisdiction: Massachusetts (state)
Effective Date: 2002-09-09
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/6578571/wesson-v-leone-enterprises-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,440 chars

The requirements of the rule we have adopted today are different from the requirements necessary to demonstrate a constructive eviction. For example, the rule does not require that the premises be “untenantable for the purposes for which they were used,” in order for the tenant to terminate the lease and vacate the premises. It is sufficient for the tenant to demonstrate the landlord’s failure, after notice, to perform a *722promise that was a significant inducement to the tenant’s entering the lease in the first instance. We interpret this language to include promises that constitute a substantial benefit understood at the time the lease was entered to be significant to the propose thereof. Richard Barton Enters., Inc. v. Tsern, 923 P.2d 368, 378 (Utah 1996) (covenant to pay rent dependent on lessor’s performance of covenants that were significant inducement to enter lease or significant to “the purpose for which the lessee entered into the lease”). Here that substantial benefit was a dry space necessary to safely conduct the high technology printing business for which the landlord knew the premises were to be used. In other cases, it might include promises having little to do with the condition of the premises, such as an agreement not to lease space in the same building to competing businesses. See Teodori v. Werner, 490 Pa. 58, 65 (1980) (landlord’s non-competition promise critical to commercial lease agreement).

Other Sections in This Document (52)

Full Text