Court Opinion

ID: 9761956
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 02:01:50.843393+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:28.202844
License: Public Domain

OPINION ON PETITION TO REHEAR
NEARN, Judge.
A petition to rehear has been filed complaining of the Court’s failure to consider *492the argument of counsel regarding the alleged unconscionability of the notice provisions of the lease agreement.
We did not directly comment on that point in our former Opinion. However, we did consider it and we thought adequately treated it when we referred to the case of Pickens v. Kizer (1930 E.S.) 11 Tenn.App. 551, as the prime authority for overruling the Assignments of Error.
The notice provisions contained in the lease in the Pickens case, supra, are strikingly similar to those contained in the lease under consideration. The Pickens Court did not find such notice provision unconscionable and this Court did not find the notice provisions in the instant case unconscionable.
We simply are unable to follow the argument propounded on appeal and in this petition that the notice provision is burdensome and unconscionable because it “requires the lessors to anticipate failure of payments by the lessee . . . [and] because the lessor could never terminate the lease for non-payment of the minimum annual payments unless within the first 30 days after the payments became due the lessors anticipated that the payment would not be made before the 60 day period ended.”
All that is required of the lessors under the notice provision is that they give written notice of default within 30 days thereof. Then, if the lessee does not rectify the default within 60 days from that default, the lessor has the right to terminate.
We stand on our Opinion of date December 5, 1974, and the petition to rehear is denied at petitioner’s cost.
CARNEY, P. J., and MATHERNE, J., concur.