Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)

Citation
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Parent Document
Camalier & Buckley-Madison, Inc. v. The Madison Hotel, Inc., 513 F.2d 407 (1975)
Jurisdiction
DC (municipal)
Effective Date
1975-05-22

Other Sections in This Document (190)

Full Text

1,561 chars
That Madison bore the prime responsibility for display and storage facilities appears from other provisions of the lease. Paragraph 2(C) required Madison to furnish “[a] reasonable amount of storage space ... in one of the four (4) garage levels of the [hotel] building, for storage purposes.” Additionally, the lease denied Camalier an unqualified right to install fixtures of its choice for any purpose. Paragraph 6(A) empowered Camalier “to place or install in said leased premises such fixtures and equipment as it may deem desirable for the conduct of business therein,” but only “subject to approval of [Madison]”; that paragraph specifically provided “that any fixtures or equipment installed by [Camalier] must first be approved by [Madison] in writing before the installation thereof.” In other words, Ca-malier was powerless to duplicate, over objections by Madison, the display and storage facilities of the old location at the new location, even at Camalier’s own expense. Very importantly, nothing in the lease indicates contemplation that substantially inferior premises could be thrust upon Camalier in the event of a substitution. Camalier could be assured of premises of the character for which it had bargained only if the U 21 conditions “that the substituted area ... be similar in size to the premises herein demised” meant similarity in the facilities for display and storage as well as in floor area. 23 . See note 21, supra. 24 . See text supra following note 2. 25 . See note 4, supra. 26 . See note 5, supra. 27 . See note 1, supra. 28