Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Schnucks Carrollton Corp. v. Bridgeton Health & Fitness Inc., 884 S.W.2d 733 (1994)

Citation
Schnucks Carrollton Corp. v. Bridgeton Health & Fitness Inc., 884 S.W.2d 733 (1994)
Parent Document
Schnucks Carrollton Corp. v. Bridgeton Health & Fitness Inc., 884 S.W.2d 733 (1994)
Jurisdiction
Missouri (state)
Effective Date
1994-10-11

Other Sections in This Document (77)

Full Text

524 chars
The parties dispute the meaning and effect of this clause. Schnucks contends it applies to any possession by Bridgeton after the expiration of the term if the parties have not agreed in writing with respect to the terms of that possession. Defendants contend that the clause has no application because Bridge-ton remained in possession with Schnucks’ consent. We agree that Article 25 did not control the amount of rent Bridgeton owed Schnucks during the time Bridgeton was a month to month tenant with Schnucks’ permission.