Court Opinion

ID: 9719233
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:46:14.278944+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:05.362082
License: Public Domain

Proctor, J.
(dissenting in part). I agree with the majority that Fornicola’s lease with the city was valid when made. I also agree, from the record before us, that the *16city could properly agree with Eornieola to alter the lease by deleting certain items to be sold, namely, frozen products, and substituting others, namely, cold sandwich platters, cakes, pies and coffee. There is no suggestion the city could have induced Eornieola to give up the sale of frozen products without permitting him to sell the substituted items. It seems to me there was good-faith bargaining to further the interests of the city, i. e., to augment its income and increase pavilion activity by leasing a vacant store. Under these circumstances I cannot say that this alteration of the lease violated the spirit or the letter of the public bidding statutes. But that part of the amended lease permitting the sale of frankfurters and hamburgers is quite another matter. Ho authority need be cited to establish the proposition that these “delicacies” are highly popular with seashore resort visitors. There was no quid pro quo for this profitable gain by Eornieola. The later inclusion permitting the sale of frankfurters and hamburgers obviously increased the attractiveness and value of the lease. Eornieola never bargained for such inclusion at the time of the original lease, nor was such inclusion bargained for when he gave up his right to sell frozen products in return for the right to sell cold sandwich platters, cakes, pies and coffee. The amendment of the lease as relates to frankfurters and hamburgers was a gratuity by the city to Eornieola of a valuable thing, i. permission to expand his business beyond the terms bargained for. To me this action seems to circumvent the public bidding statutes, N. J. S. A. 40:61-36 to 40, which prevent the city from leasing out its buildings except to the highest responsible bidder after proper advertising. See Asbury Park Press v. City of Asbury Park, 19 N. J. 183 (1955). The fact that the city suggested Eornieola handle frankfurters and hamburgers to meet the convenience of visitors and city employees has no significance. The city cannot disregard the goal of the public bidding statutes when it seeks to enlarge the scope of a lease. We are concerned here with a valuable addition to the terms of the original *17lease, not a burdensome favor Eornicola might render the city. All boardwalk refreshment stands are for the convenience of bathers and strollers. Such convenience is translated into the lessee’s profits and is the very reason why his lease becomes more valuable when he is permitted .to expand the scope of his operations.
I would uphold the original lease as amended to permit Eornicola to sell cold sandwich platters, cakes, pies and coffee in lieu of frozen products. I would invalidate that part of the amendment which permits Eornicola to sell frankfurters and hamburgers.