R.A. Beaufort & Sons, Inc. v. Trivisonno, 403 A.2d 664 (1979)

Citation: R.A. Beaufort & Sons, Inc. v. Trivisonno, 403 A.2d 664 (1979)
Parent Document: R.A. Beaufort & Sons, Inc. v. Trivisonno, 403 A.2d 664 (1979)
Jurisdiction: Rhode Island (state)
Effective Date: 1979-07-11
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2054698/ra-beaufort-sons-inc-v-trivisonno/ ↗

Full Text

1,149 chars

The trial justice ruled that the lease did not require the lessee to pay attorney’s fees in the event of a breach. We agree. The lease, insofar as it relates to the attorney’s fees, cannot be considered a model of preciseness. When the “Security Deposit” wording is considered alongside the “Remedy For Breach” language concerning “any damages that shall become due us,” the lease appears to be saying that the security fund will serve as a source for the partial or full satisfaction of any legal fee for which a court has ruled the tenant was liable. Since the landlord is responsible for the ambiguity, it must suffer the consequences. Thus, in these circumstances the landlord’s request for a fee is then faced with the general rule which, in the absence of some specific statutory authority or contractual undertaking, prohibits counsel fees from being taxed as part of the cost of litigation or otherwise. Malinou v. Rhode Island Hospital Trust National Bank, 116 R.I. 548, 550-51, 359 A.2d 43, 44 (1976); Waite v. Board of Review, Department of Employment Security, 108 R.I. 177, 178, 273 A.2d 670, 671 (1971); Washington Trust Co. v. Fatone,

Other Sections in This Document (37)

Full Text