Opinion ID: 1388158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Execution of lease attached stipulations.

Text: Klamath Forest Estates is a real estate subdivision in Klamath County and was being developed by defendant. Defendant advertised in Southern California for the sale of tracts in Klamath Forest Estates and had its sales office near Los Angeles. As part of its plan to develop that area defendant constructed a building on one of its lots for operation as a store. Plaintiffs had been engaged in the operation of a small business near Los Angeles and were attracted by defendant's advertising. They bought 10 acres sight unseen and then visited the Klamath Forest Estates. During that visit they later inquired about the possibility of leasing defendant's building for operation as a store. After some delay, during which plaintiffs sold their business and moved to Oregon, they met with Tom White, defendant's manager of the tract, to execute the lease. According to plaintiffs, they had been told by a Mr. Adams, defendant's sales manager in Los Angeles, that what Tom White says goes. White was also referred to as the tract manager of Klamath Forest Estates area in defendant's advertising publications. Plaintiffs testified that Mr. White presented them with a proposed written lease, which they examined, and that they then told him that they wanted it stipulated that as part of the lease agreement the driveway would be cindered and kept free of snow, so that the delivery people could get in, and that there would be both a water hook-up and a septic tank hook-up. Plaintiffs also testified that Mr. White wrote down these stipulations on a separate sheet of paper, which was then signed by him, as well as by both plaintiffs, and then attached to the lease. The lease with these stipulations attached was then also signed by the plaintiffs and mailed to defendant's Los Angeles office. According to plaintiff Wall, they were told by Mr. White that these stipulations would be typed in at the California office and that when it came back it would have these stipulations in it. The written lease was subsequently signed on behalf of defendant by a Mr. Arthur W. Carlsberg. It did not then, however, have the attachments [on] it and defendant's witnesses testified that when it was previously received by its Los Angeles office it had no such attachments. After the return of the lease, the date was changed from October 1 to November 1, 1966, by Tom White and he then initialed that change. According to plaintiff Wall, plaintiffs asked Mr. White many times about those stipulations; that he kept telling me    that everything promised would be done; that she was never given any reason to believe to the contrary; that she would not have entered into this business without those stipulations; and that in reliance upon them plaintiffs spent a lot of money stocking that store and put a lot of work in. Other testimony was also offered by plaintiffs of their many complaints and of the promises by Tom White and by his successors as tract manager that these things would be taken care of. Plaintiffs also offered evidence that at a meeting with Mr. Richard Carlsberg in August 1968 the water hook-up and the sewer hook-up were discussed and that Mr. Carlsberg then said that he thought that these matters had been taken care of. The original lease was for a term of one year, with an option to renew for a term of five years. That option was exercised by the plaintiffs. According to plaintiffs, however, they did not do so until after they were assured by Tom White and others that these matters would be taken care of. The lease, as renewed, expired by its terms on November 1, 1972.