Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Jawshu, CLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises

(1986)

New York Court of Appeals - 492 N.E.2d 756, 67 N.Y.2d 186

tl;dr:

A building owner improperly canceled a lease with the plaintiff. The court ordered the owner to pay damages instead of carrying out the contract.

Video Summary


Case Summary

In Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises (1986), focused on a dispute over a breached billboard lease contract.

Van Wagner Advertising accused S & M Enterprises of breaking the contract when they ended the lease following their purchase of the building with the billboard. Van Wagner Advertising sued for specific performance and compensation for lost profits from subleasing the billboard.

Van Wagner Advertising originally entered into contract with Barbara Michaels on December 16, 1981. Michaels agreed to lease to Van Wagner space on the wall of her building in Manhattan, which Van Wagner then subleased to another company as a billboard. The contract specified that the lessor could cancel the lease upon the sale of the building to a third party. Michaels sold the building to S & M Enterprises on January 22, 1982, and S & M subsequently canceled Van Wagner’s lease.

Van Wagner Advertising successfully argued in court that the parties intended only for the original lessor (Michaels) to be able to cancel the lease in the event of sale, not the new lessor (S & M). However, the court did not order specific performance, finding that damages would be an adequate remedy.

The central question was whether the plaintiff deserved specific performance or damages due to the defendant's contract violation. The court decided that specific performance wasn't a suitable solution, as it would unfairly burden the defendant, who had a valid interest in managing their property. The court also rejected damages as an option due to their speculative and uncertain nature, as they relied on the unknown marketability and profitability of the billboard.

This case highlights the principle of discretion in contract law, which involves carefully considering both parties' interests and equities when deciding on specific performance or damages for a breached contract. It also shows that courts won't provide remedies that would put the harmed party in a better position than if the contract had been fulfilled or that would excessively interfere with the defaulting party's property rights. In addition, the court examines the contract's nature and purpose and the harm's foreseeability and cause when determining the availability of remedies.

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingVan Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises case brief facts & holding

Facts:Van Wagner Advertising (plaintiff) sued S & M Enterprises (defendant)...

Holding:Van Wagner argues that specific performance should be granted because...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: Kaye, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involved a dispute between Van Wagner Advertising and S & M Enterprises over the interpretation of a lease agreement for billboard space on a building in Manhattan. The Trial Term ruled in favor of Van Wagner Advertising, finding that the lease provision only allowed the owner to terminate the lease before selling the building. The court declared the lease valid and subsisting, but did not order specific performance, as it found that damages were an adequate remedy for Van Wagner. The Appellate Division affirmed the case without opinion, and both parties were granted leave to appeal. The court found that section 1.05 of the lease was ambiguous, but Trial Term's finding that the parol evidence supported Van Wagner's interpretation was affirmed. The court considered the remedy for the breach of contract, and found that while specific performance is not typically awarded for breach of a lease, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in awarding it in this case. However, the order was modified due to an error in the assessment of damages and remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises

Chat for Van Wagner Advertising Corp. v. S & M Enterprises
brief-58
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.