Case Name: Bernard SCHONINGER and Schoninger Enterprises, a Florida partnership, comprised of Howard Schoninger and Bernard Schoninger d/b/a H.C. Development, Appellants, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a foreign corporation and Oilube of Florida, Inc., f/k/a McQuick's Oilube of Florida, Inc. a Florida corporation, Appellees
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-11-03
Citations: 514 So. 2d 430
Docket Number: No. 87-445
Parties: Bernard SCHONINGER and Schoninger Enterprises, a Florida partnership, comprised of Howard Schoninger and Bernard Schoninger d/b/a H.C. Development, Appellants, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a foreign corporation and Oilube of Florida, Inc., f/k/a McQuick’s Oilube of Florida, Inc. a Florida corporation, Appellees.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 514
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
Bernard SCHONINGER and Schoninger Enterprises, a Florida partnership, comprised of Howard Schoninger and Bernard Schoninger d/b/a H.C. Development, Appellants, v. UNION OIL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, a foreign corporation and Oilube of Florida, Inc., f/k/a McQuick’s Oilube of Florida, Inc. a Florida corporation, Appellees.
No. 87-445.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Nov. 3, 1987.
Klein & Tannen and Alan D. Sackrin and Norman Klein, North Miami Beach, for appellants.
O’Neal & Booth, Ft. Lauderdale, Mer-shon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwody & Cole, Miami, and Harvey W. Gurland, Jr., for ap-pellees.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
We find no error in the trial court interpreting a lease provision for a service station operating in connection with a shopping center, to require the lessee or his assigns to sell gasoline as well as oil and lubrication for automobiles. The lease required the lessee to operate a "typical" service station. It also required, under the use provision, for the sale of " petroleum products
The trial judge, in exercising equity power, has fashioned a remedy that is consistent with a reasonable interpretation of the responsibility of the parties to the lease and error not having been made to appear, we affirm. Hemphill v. Pesat, 98 Fla. 124, 123 So. 561 (1929); Food Fair Stores, Inc. v. Harte-Pen-TEQ Enterprises, Ltd., 275 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973); Phipps v. Sheffman, 211 So.2d 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968); Marsh v. Hartley, 109 So.2d 34 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959).
Affirmed.