Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Haddad v. Francis, 537 A.2d 174 (1986)

Citation
Haddad v. Francis, 537 A.2d 174 (1986)
Parent Document
Haddad v. Francis, 537 A.2d 174 (1986)
Jurisdiction
Connecticut (state)
Effective Date
1986-06-30

Other Sections in This Document (65)

Full Text

1,243 chars
1984-85. In arriving at these amounts, the court has concluded that Mary’s Diner, Inc., is a business of the tenant within the purview of paragraph 10 of the lease. Several reasons underlie this conclusion. First, the sublease was never authorized by the plaintiff as is required by paragraph 7 of the lease. The defendant is in the anomalous position of having breached one clause of the lease and claiming that the benefit of that breach should relieve him from an obligation imposed by another clause. Second, and perhaps more important, a review of the terms of the sublease demonstrates that Mary’s Diner, Inc., and the defendant’s My Place Cafe are closely connected, in fact, although they may, indeed, be separate legal entities. Both enterprises occupy and use the same essential facilities, kitchen, dining room and parking spaces at different times of the day. The sublease is not the usual “horizontal” type of arrangement whereby the lessee’s estate is a present one and the lessor’s estate is reversionary. Instead, the sublease is a rather unique “vertical” arrangement by which Mary’s Diner, Inc., occupies the premises each day from 3:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., and My Place Cafe occupies the same premises for the remaining hours.