section 1951

Citation: section 1951
Parent Document: 250 LLC v. Photopoint Corp.(usa), 32 Cal. Rptr. 3d 296 (2005)
Jurisdiction: California (state)
Effective Date: 2005-07-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2281319/250-llc-v-photopoint-corpusa/ ↗

Full Text

1,314 chars

250 contends that section 6.A’s limitation on the use of the security deposit to cover past due rent does not apply to the portion of the security deposit represented by the letter of credit, because section 6.B provides that the proceeds of the letter of credit are to be applied in accordance with section 6.A only in the situation where the letter of credit is drawn after the issuing bank advises that the letter of credit will not be renewed. However, nothing in the lease suggests that the letter of credit proceeds can be applied in any manner other than the one specified in section 6.A. Section 6.A states that the “Security Deposit” can be used to satisfy past due rent, and section l.H defines “Security Deposit” to include the letter of credit furnished under section 6.B. The lease thus clearly and unambiguously limits the application of the letter of credit funds to past due rent. As we read the sentence in section 6.B on which 250 relies, it simply confirms that the letter of credit proceeds are to be held, applied and returned as provided in section 6.A when the letter of credit is drawn because it will not be renewed, as well as when it is drawn because of a PhotoPoint default. The sentence thus reinforces our interpretation of the permissible use of the security deposit under the lease.

Other Sections in This Document (165)

Full Text