How have the courts interpreted a waiver of interest in a commercial lease agreement?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from Richfield Oil Corp. v. Security-First Nat. Bank of Los Angeles, 159 Cal.App.2d 184, 323 P.2d 834 (Cal. App. 1958):
In support of the waiver so found by the court, respondent in his brief quotes from Wilson v. Brown, 5 Cal.2d 425, 428, 55 P.2d 485, the following: 'Lessors contended upon the trial of the case that the lessees had been offered the opportunity to purchase the premises described in the lease, but had in effect rejected the offer by stating that they did not desire to purchase all of the leased premises. Lessors claimed that the lessees stated that they did not desire to buy the dwelling house, but only the premises on which the service station was located. Had this claim been satisfactorily [159 Cal.App.2d 194] substantiated upon the trial of the case it would have been a complete defense to the suit by lessees for specific performance of their option.'
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
