Court Opinion

ID: 9551170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:48:39.304637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:23:12.576366
License: Public Domain

BAKES, Justice
(concurring specially) :
I concur in the result reached by the majority for the additional reason that, in my opinion, the phrase in the lease, “provided, however, that said party of the second part is granted first right of refusal to purchase premises,” is not a sufficient legal articulation of the rights intended to be granted in order to enforce that provision. I think it presumes too much to ask a court to conclude the sale of a substantial amount of real property based upon such meager expression of the parties’ intentions, and no details as to how, when and with what formalities the so-called “first right of refusal” is to be consummated.