Opinion ID: 2090001
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Count II: Hong Contract

Text: The trial court found that ESS also had not met its burden of proof regarding the landlord's alleged breach of the lease agreement concerning the proposed assignment to Mr. Hong. The trial court specifically found that the landlord was not obligated to modify the lease to allow installation of the proposed salad bar, and was therefore within its rights to refuse the assignment of the contract. The trial court found that the language of the use clause appears clear and unambiguous and would not allow operation of a salad bar or cafeteria type of operation without modification. Unlike in the previous contract for sale to Mrs. Chung, appellees consented to the assignment to Mr. Hong, but refused to modify the use clause so as to permit the change to the operation of the restaurant Mr. Hong desired. ESS argues that Mr. Hong only wanted to rearrange some portable equipment to utilize a salad bar, and that the conditional approval was granted on the very day that settlement on the contract was to take place. As a result of the unreasonable condition concerning the salad bar and attendant delay in consenting to the assignment, allegedly prompted by discriminatory animus, argues ESS, the lease was breached by the landlord. The trial court held as a matter of law that approval of the assignment was not unreasonable as to constitute a breach of the contract. Appellees had made it clear prior to the time for settlement that Mr. Hong satisfied the finance and experience criteria. Moreover, all parties were involved in discussions over the use clause during the period leading to the date the contract was to settle and Asadoorian had requested a schematic drawing from Mr. Hong, never provided, of the proposed rearrangement of the restaurant prior to approval. As early as June 9, 1993, Mr. Hong had expressed concern to the leasing agent over potential problems with the use clause. The trial court's finding that the proposed salad and hot bar would require modification of the lease's use clause and that the landlord was not obligated to change the clause, was not clearly erroneous, nor was its holding that appellees neither unreasonably delayed approval nor wrongfully conditioned the assignment. [19]