Opinion ID: 186311
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Concession Period Rent

Text: 11 Next, O'Donnell challenges the award of rent for the initial three-month period, January to March 1998. The sublease provides: 12 [P]rovided that Sublessee performs all other terms, covenants and conditions of this Sublease, then for the period commencing on the Commencement Date up through March 31, 1998 (Rent Concession Period), Sublessee shall not be obligated to pay Basic Rent to Sublessor hereunder. 13 Sublease at 2, § 3A. The district court concluded that under this proviso the rent conceded during the initial three months (January to March 1998) later became due when BOD ceased operating its restaurant in March 1999 in breach of section 14 of the sublease which required that BOD continuously operate its restaurant business in a first-class manner during the sublease term which did not expire until November 2000. We agree with the district court's interpretation of the unambiguous language of the quoted provision. O'Donnell does not dispute that BOD violated section 14 by abandoning the restaurant prematurely but contends this breach did not trigger liability for the conceded rent because the quoted proviso required only that the sublessee not breach other terms of the sublease during the Rent Concession Period and did not authorize retroactive rent obligations based on breaches after the period ends. We disagree. The proviso contained no limitation on which sublease terms must be performed or when in order to preserve the rent concession but broadly required performance of  all other terms, covenants and conditions of the sublease, which language unambiguously includes the continuous operation requirement in section 14 (emphasis added). 5