Court Opinion

ID: 9702996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:36:25.155153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:44.751350
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
concurring:
While I join Judge BROSKY’s opinion, I find it unnecessary to decide whether appellant had a duty to occupy the premises, for if there were such a duty, appellant could not have breached it, since the opportunity to do so was thwarted by appellee’s conduct as lessor.
During the period July 25 through August 1, 1974, appel-lee and appellant engaged in discussions in which the appel-lee sought appellant’s agreement to a short-term extension of the beginning of appellant’s lease term so that Catalytic, the existing tenant, could remain on the premises until its new quarters were completed. In exchange, appellant sought relief from its liability under the lease. Appellant’s *244participation in these discussions suggests that it had not repudiated any obligation under the lease.
At one point in the negotiations, cancellation, of the lease with a lump-sum payment by appellant was rejected by appellee. See R. 805a. In the final discussion between the parties—on August 1—appellee’s agent stated that the next day he would propose additional ideas for possible compromise. R. 794a. The record contains no evidence that any such further proposals were made. Instead, on August 5 appellee acceded to Catalytic’s demand for an extension of Catalytic’s lease, without having obtained appellant’s agreement to such an extension. As part of the extension agreement, R. 810a, Catalytic rented four additional floors from appellee for a term of two years, with three one-year renewal options. See also R. 774a. Thus appellee, by entering into the extension agreement, ended compromise negotiations with appellant. That being the case, it was impossible, for appellant to repudiate any obligation it may have had under the lease to occupy the premises.