Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Salisbury

Decision Date20 February 1992
Docket NumberNo. 91-117-A,91-117-A
Citation603 A.2d 726
CourtRhode Island Supreme Court
PartiesBIBBY'S REFRIGERATION, HEATING & AIR CONDITIONING, INC. v. Robert G. SALISBURY, d/b/a Round House Tavern.
OPINION

FAY, Chief Justice.

This case comes before the Supreme Court on appeal by the plaintiff, Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. (Bibby's Refrigeration). This action began in the District Court wherein the plaintiff sought recovery of unpaid rent for the period during which the defendant retained possession of an ice-making machine after expiration of the parties' rental agreement. The judge found for the plaintiff in the amount of $3,016.40. The defendant appealed this award. An arbitrator heard the matter and found for the plaintiff. Thereafter the case was heard before the Superior Court wherein the trial justice directed a verdict for the plaintiff but awarded zero damages. The plaintiff appeals from this decision. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the trial justice's decision in part and reverse in part.

The facts pertinent to this appeal are as follows. On May 14, 1979, defendant, Robert G. Salisbury (Salisbury), d/b/a Round House Tavern, rented an ice-making machine from Bibby's Refrigeration. The terms of the rental agreement required Salisbury to pay Bibby's Refrigeration $63.60 per month for thirty-six months plus a $100 security deposit. The agreement also provided defendant an option to purchase the machine outright at the end of the first year of the rental agreement by making a lump-sum payment of the remaining two years' rent.

According to Peter Bibby (Bibby), at the end of the first year he telephoned defendant in order to determine if defendant was going to exercise the option to purchase the ice-making machine. The plaintiff testified that Salisbury said he was not exercising the option because he did not have the money to do so at that time. In total Salisbury made thirty-four monthly payments of $63.60 to plaintiff. In April 1982 defendant sent plaintiff a check in the amount of $27.20 marked "Paid in Full." Presumably the sum of $27.20 represented the March 1982 and April 1982 rent payments totaling $127.20 less the $100 security deposit. The plaintiff did not cash the check.

The parties had a telephone conversation shortly after plaintiff received the check from defendant. In that telephone conversation and at trial, Salisbury asserted that he believed he owned the ice machine at the end of the rental period. The defendant testified at trial that he told plaintiff, "I thought the contract was up, I was paying the remainder of the price on it" by tendering the check for $27.20. However, Bibby testified at trial that in this telephone conversation he explained to defendant that defendant did not own the ice machine and that the ice machine was not paid in full since defendant had not exercised the option.

Bibby claims that he made numerous telephone calls to defendant and that he attempted to remove the ice machine from defendant's premises. The plaintiff stated that he was unable to remove the machine because defendant's employees prevented him from entering defendant's building. Salisbury denies plaintiff's assertions and claims that plaintiff never attempted to reclaim the ice machine.

Bibby's Refrigeration argues that the trial justice awarded an improper amount of damages. The plaintiff contends that upon expiration of the lease, it had the option to treat the rental agreement as continuing or renewed. The defendant asserts, however, that the trial justice properly applied a quantum meruit standard of damages and that as a result of Morrissey v. Piette, 103 R.I. 751, 241 A.2d 302 (1968), plaintiff was not entitled to a recovery in the absence of evidence of the reasonable rental charge of the ice machine.

The defendant in Morrissey lived in a mobile home at a trailer park when the plaintiff purchased the park. Id. at 752, 241 A.2d at 302. The defendant made regular weekly rental payments until she moved out, leaving the trailer behind. Id. The plaintiff brought suit on the theory that there was an express agreement between the parties and that the defendant was liable for the weekly rent payments while the trailer remained at the park. The trial justice found that the plaintiff "did not prove that there was or ever had been an express landlord-tenant relationship between" the plaintiff and the defendant. Id. at 753, 241 A.2d at 302. Therefore, on appeal the court concluded that an implied agreement was the only basis for liability. Id. at 753, 241 A.2d at 303. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover on an implied contract because he failed to prove "what would have been a fair and reasonable rental or storage charge." Id. at 754, 241 A.2d at 303.

Although the facts of the present case appear to be quite similar to those in Morrissey, we conclude that Morrissey is distinguishable and therefore not precedent to this case. The trial justice in Morrissey concluded that the parties had never entered into an express agreement. However, in the instant case Salisbury and Bibby's Refrigeration had entered into an express agreement for the rental of the ice-making machine. Therefore, Morrissey is not determinative of the issues in the present case.

This court has addressed the status of a tenant who holds over after the expiration of a lease. Rose v. Congdon, 72 R.I. 21, 25-27, 47 A.2d 857, 859-60 (1946); Rimnik Corp. v. Wallace, 61 R.I. 282, 284-85, 200 A. 765, 766 (1938). It is a covenant either express or implied in all leases that the leased premises be delivered to the landlord upon termination of the lease. Although holding over by the tenant is wrongful, the tenant is not immediately treated as a trespasser. The landlord has the power to determine the status of holdover tenants either by treating them as trespassers or by waiving the wrong of holding over and treating them as tenants. Rose, 72 R.I. at 25, 47 A.2d at 860; Providence County Savings Bank v. Hall, 16 R.I. 154, 156-57, 13 A. 122, 124 (1888). When the landlord elects to treat the tenancy as continuing, the tenant is a "tenant from year to year, in case the prior term was for a year or longer; and if the prior term was shorter than a year, then from term to term." Providence County Savings Bank, 16 R.I. at 158, 13 A. at 124.

A number of courts have applied the same reasoning to cases involving bailees who retain possession of the bailed property after the expiration of the bailment. See, e.g., Fast Bearing Co. v. Koppers Co., 181 Md. 203, 205, 29 A.2d 289, 290 (1942); Shepherd v. Hub Lumber Co., 273 Or. 331, 338-39, 541 P.2d 439, 443 (1975); Luling Oil & Gas Co. v. Edwards, 32 S.W.2d 921, 926 (Tex.Ct.App.1930); see generally 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 293 (1980). In general the law imposes an obligation on the bailee to return the bailed property at the expiration of the bailment. Edgar v. Parsell, 184 Mich. 522, 528, 151 N.W. 714, 715 (1915); Alice Pipe & Supply Co. v. Harroun, 195 S.W.2d 852, 853 (Tex.Ct.App.1946); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 293. If at the expiration of the bailment the bailee does not redeliver the property or excuse the failure to do so, the bailor may elect to treat the bailee's retention of the property as a continuation of the original agreement or to treat the contract as ended and pursue a remedy for breach of contract or in tort. Fast Bearing Co., 181 Md. at 205, 29 A.2d at 290; Edgar, 184 Mich. at 528, 151 N.W. at 715-16; Shepherd, 273 Or. at 338-39, 541 P.2d at 443. If the bailor elects to treat the bailee's retention of the property as a continuation of the original agreement, the bailor may recover rent at the rate specified in the original agreement for the period during which the bailee retained possession of the bailed property. Shepherd, 273 Or. at 338-39, 541 P.2d at 443; Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Conasauga River Lumber Co., 25 Tenn.App. 157, 162, 153 S.W.2d 143, 147 (1941); 8 Am.Jur.2d Bailments § 293.

Some courts appear unwilling to imply a renewal of the original bailment agreement from the mere fact that the bailee held over. Edgar, 184 Mich. at 528, 151 N.W. at 716 (holding over without more does not "work a change of ownership"). These courts seem to be concerned that binding a bailee to an implied renewal of the bailment agreement, solely as a result of the holding over, might result in hardship to the bailee....

To continue reading

Request your trial
47 cases
  • Tomaino v. Concord Oil of Newport, Inc., 95-684-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 25, 1998
    ...... involved primarily at that time in the home-heating-oil business. Tomaino, who brought with him seventeen ... Thus a trial justice, in reducing a verdict or conditioning the denial of a motion for new trial on a plaintiff's ... Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Salisbury, 603 A.2d ......
  • Pier of Newport, LLC. v. N.A.J. Assocs., L.L.C., C.A. No. NC 2011-0502
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • February 11, 2014
    ......Med. Assocs. of Rhode Island, Inc., et al. , No. 99-2512, 2000 WL 1146532 (D.R.I. ...1998) (citing Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Salisbury , ......
  • Renaissance Development Corp. v. Airport Valet, Inc., C.A. KD 2011-1208
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • December 2, 2013
    ...waiving the wrong of holding over and treating them like tenants." Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Salisbury, 603 A.2d 726, 728 (R.I. 1992) (citing Rose v. Congdon, 72 R.I. 21, 25, 47 A.2d 857, 860 (1946); Providence County Sav. Bank v. Hall, 16 R.I. 154, 156-57, ......
  • Renaissance Development Corp. v. Airport Valet, Inc.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • December 2, 2013
    ...waiving the wrong of holding over and treating them like tenants." Bibby's Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Salisbury, 603 A.2d 726, 728 (R.I. 1992) (citing Rose v. Congdon, 72 R.I. 21, 25, 47 A.2d 857, 860 (1946); Providence County Sav. Bank v. Hall, 16 R.I. 154, 156-57, ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • § 31.02 The Various State Laws and Views
    • United States
    • Full Court Press Negotiating and Drafting Commercial Leases CHAPTER 31 Responding to a Tenant's Assignment or Sublease Request
    • Invalid date
    ...v. Concord Oil, 709 A.2d 1016, 1026 (R.I. 1998).[391] Id.[392] Id.[393] Bibbys Refrigeration, Heating & Air Conditioning v. Salisbury, 603 A.2d 726, 729 (R.I. 1992).[394] Id.[395] Aneluca Assocs. v. Lombardi, 620 A.2d 88, 92 (R.I. 1993).[396] Id.[397] Id. [398] Nexsen v. Haddock, 353 S.C. 7......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT