Court Opinion

ID: 9884618
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:03:40.660131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.752611
License: Public Domain

*1075KIRSCH, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I fully concur with the majority's holding that the trial court did not err in granting Michigan Sporting Goods' Motion to Correct Error, but I respectfully dissent from its holding that the remedy set out in Section 24.28 of the lease is the exclusive remedy for breach of that section.
To me, the provisions of the section are clear and unambiguous. It provides that if Simon violates the section, the tenant "shall have the right" to pay reduced rent. There is no statement that reduced rent is the "only," the "sole" or the "exclusive" remedy for such breach. Nothing in the section, nor elsewhere in the lease, limits the rights or remedies of Michigan Sporting Goods regarding such a breach in any way.
Indiana law requires that any limitation on remedies "should be definite and positive in its terms as to show the clear intention of the parties to do so." Strauss v. Yeager, 48 Ind.App. 448, 93 N.E. 877, 882 (1911). The fact that a specific remedy is set forth, as here, does not deprive a party of other remedies "unless the terms thereof expressly restricted the parties to such specified remedy." Whitcomb v. Indianapolis Traction & Terminal Co., 64 Ind.App. 605, 116 N.E. 444, 445 (1917).
Here, there is no "definite or positive" term that the remedy is exclusive. The fact that other sections set forth a remedy and state that such a remedy is in addition to other remedies at law is of no moment, nor is the lack of such language in the section at issue. Indeed, under the law of this state, such language is surplusage. Further, because I believe the language of the section is clear and unambiguous (whether patent or latent), extrinsic evi-denee is not admissible.
The parties to this lease are sophisticated, commercial entities, dealing at arms length, represented by competent counsel. They clearly had the opportunity and ability to set out explicitly any limitation on remedies. They did not.
I would affirm the trial court's order granting the Motion to Correct Errors and reverse its order that the remedy set out in Section 24.28 of the lease is an exclusive remedy.