Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)

Citation: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Parent Document: Boston LLC v. Juarez (2015)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2015-10-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/3006950/boston-llc-v-juarez/ ↗

Full Text

2,027 chars

In the present case, paragraph 11 of the parties’ agreement required that defendant obtain
renter’s insurance. If there had been no other provision regarding the materiality of breaches in
the agreement, the question of whether the breach was material would have been one for the
3
Judicially imposed limits on adhesion contracts include “that such a contract or provision
which does not fall within the reasonable expectations of the weaker or ‘adhering’ party will not be
enforced against him. [Citations.] [And]--a principle of equity applicable to all contracts generally--is
that a contract or provision, even if consistent with the reasonable expectations of the parties, will be
denied enforcement if, considered in its context, it is unduly oppressive or ‘unconscionable.’
[Citations.]” (Graham v. Scissor-Tail, Inc., supra, 28 Cal.3d at p. 820, fn. omitted.) Defendant does
not contend the lease agreement was a contract of adhesion, or that it was unconscionable, hence we do
not opine on the merits of such contentions.
6
trier of fact to decide. (See NIVO 1 LLC v. Antunez, supra, 217 Cal.App.4th at p. Supp. 4.)
But, the relevant part of the forfeiture clause in the parties’ agreement provided, “Owner and
Renter agree that Renter’s performance of and compliance with each of the terms thereof, . . .
constitute a condition on Renter’s right to occupy the Premises and any failure of compliance
or performance by Renter shall allow Owner to forfeit this agreement and terminate Renter’s
right to possession.” (Italics added.) The clear and unambiguous terms of this clause permitted
forfeiture of the agreement and termination of defendant’s right to possession based on any
breach, regardless of the breach’s importance in relation to the entire agreement. Pursuant to
the clause, evidence concerning the breach’s materiality was irrelevant; hence there was no
need for a jury to be instructed on the issue, or have it render special verdicts.

Other Sections in This Document (72)

Full Text