Schweiso

Schweiso v. Williams

Good Law
150 Cal. App. 3d 883·198 Cal. Rptr. 238·1984 Cal. App. LEXIS 1499
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 12, 1984Civ. 53401California1,123 words

Opinion

Opinion

Feinberg, J.

On this appeal from dismissals in these consolidated actions following summary judgments in favor of the same defendants (Williams, Palo Alto Town & Country Village et al.) the only issue is whether a lessor may arbitrarily refuse consent when a commercial lease provides that a lessee shall not assign or sublease the premises without the written consent of the lessor.

The pleadings, affidavits and counteraffidavits alleged the following: Appellants Stevenson, Schweiso, and Jazbutis each had leased commercial premises from the respondents. Paragraph 13 of each lease provided that the lessee was precluded from assigning the premises without the written consent of the lessor. Appellants Stevenson and Schweiso, commercial tenants of the respondents, entered into contracts with third parties to sell their businesses. Respondents for no valid commercial reason refused to consent to Stevenson’s proposed assignee unless Stevenson paid 10 percent of the purchase price ($15,500) which Stevenson paid under protest.

Respondents also interfered with Schweiso’s contract with the prospective purchaser (Grofs), by telling Grofs that they were paying too much for Schweiso’s business.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.