Court Opinion

ID: 9722159
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:18:12.271691+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.066962
License: Public Domain

Kavanagh, C. J.
(dissenting). I disagree with my brother in two respects. First the statute’s nebulous language "burden of proving the fairness to the contracting parties” does not provide a standard of review other than the substitution of the reviewing court’s assessment of the evidence for that of the trial court. I am satisfied from my review of the record that this lease was as "fair” as most leases to the contracting parties. The lessor leased space to the lessee at a rate that represented the rate a stranger was paying for it plus an amount necessary to amortize the cost of improvements the lessee specified over the life of the lease.
There is no suggestion that anyone was hoodwinked in the transaction and I am convinced the plaintiff did all that was reasonably to be expected of it to establish its right to the rent.
Next I disagree that the proof or failure of proof of "fairness” disposes of this case.
I do not read this statute as having the effect of rendering totally void a contract between a corporation and a director even if the contract be deemed "unfair”.
I believe the only legitimate effect which may be given this statute is to hold it renders even "unfair” contracts affirmable at the option, of the entity treated "unfairly”.
*464The issue of ratification is indeed a viable and separate issue which was not addressed by the Court of Appeals.
We should at least return the case to that Court for consideration of that issue.
Levin, J., concurred with Kavanagh, C. J.