Opinion ID: 1129411
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sham Lease

Text: The appellees contend that the dining room was included in the leased premises on the advice of a representative of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. It was not intended that the Backdoor Lounge would receive revenue from food sales in the dining room or that Jeffrey's Restaurant would receive revenue from liquor sales there. Clause 1d of the lease says as much. [4] There seems to be no genuine issue on this point. However, the appellees go on to argue that it was intended that dining room liquor service be permitted only on a trial basis reserving all decision making rights ... to Jeffrey's. This contradicts the language of the lease. It is also inconsistent with the 1985 lease amendment. This amendment deleted the dining room from the lease in return for a reduction in lease rates during the second fifteen year period should the option to renew be exercised. If liquor service in the dining room area could be terminated at the will of Jeffrey's, this would not have been necessary. In our view, a genuine issue of fact exists as to whether the lease was originally intended to give Jeffrey's the unilateral right to cut off liquor services in the dining area.