Court Opinion

ID: 9767548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:21:11.230136+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:31.727618
License: Public Domain

O’QUINN, Justice
(dissenting).
Because I cannot agree with the majority that the trial court was correct in concluding that the lease “clearly prohibits” use of the premises “for live entertainment,” I dissent and state my reasons.
The written lease, in broad terms, authorizes “traffic in food and beverages.” By later agreement of the parties, the premises were converted, at Ferrari s considerable expense, from a pizza parlor to a supper club. It is common knowledge, which this Court can notice, that entertainment, live or mechanical, is frequently offered as an adjunct and as a customary part of the operation of a place where people eat. That custom was a firmly established part of the restaurant business prior to the making of the lease and must be considered within the contemplation of parties at the time, in the absence of an express prohibition in the writing.
The nature of the entertainment, not the fact it was “live entertainment,” appears to be the real basis for the trial court’s conclusions. But to enjoin ail “live entertainment” prohibits not only entertainment of an exotic character, not universally accepted perhaps in the community, but also forbids the usual and customary entertainment represented in singers, banjo players, violinists, string bands, and pianists who perform fully clothed.
The judgment of the trial court should be modified so as not to enjoin the usual and customary live entertainment long recognized as an acceptable aspect of public eating places.