Owner Can't Bar Men's Clothing Store from Space

May 31, 2004

A lease's use clause allowed a national tenant to sell men's clothing, including suits, slacks, sport coats, shirts, and casual wear. The tenant began construction on its space. When the owner learned that the tenant planned to offer “urban wear” and “hip-hop” clothing, the owner said it wouldn't honor the lease and offered to pay the tenant to walk away from the lease. The tenant refused. The tenant's contractors were then told by the owner to stop work, and the space was locked. So the tenant sued the owner, asking the court to order the owner to give it access to the space.

A lease's use clause allowed a national tenant to sell men's clothing, including suits, slacks, sport coats, shirts, and casual wear. The tenant began construction on its space. When the owner learned that the tenant planned to offer “urban wear” and “hip-hop” clothing, the owner said it wouldn't honor the lease and offered to pay the tenant to walk away from the lease. The tenant refused. The tenant's contractors were then told by the owner to stop work, and the space was locked. So the tenant sued the owner, asking the court to order the owner to give it access to the space.

A federal appeals court in Minnesota ruled that the owner couldn't bar the tenant from the space. The court said that the “expansive language of the lease does not limit or prohibit [the tenant] from selling urban wear.” The court rejected the owner's argument that it had leased space to the tenant under the belief that it primarily sold fine men's clothing. The court noted that the tenant would be selling fine men's clothing—but it would also sell more casual clothing as well, including urban wear and hip-hip clothing [D.B. Indy, LLC v. Talisman Brookdale LLC].

More like this