Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., No. 9837

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
Writing for the CourtCONDON
Citation143 A.2d 313,88 R.I. 88
Docket NumberNo. 9837
Decision Date09 July 1958
PartiesBennett LEHNER v. ADAM HAT STORES, Inc. Ex.

Page 313

143 A.2d 313
88 R.I. 88
Bennett LEHNER
v.
ADAM HAT STORES, Inc.
Ex. No. 9837.
Supreme Court of Rhode Island.
July 9, 1958.

Page 314

[88 R.I. 98] Abraham Marks, Providence, for plaintiff.

Thomas W. Pearlman, Providence, for defendant.

[88 R.I. 90] CONDON, Chief Justice.

This is an action of assumpsit which was tried before a justice of the superior court sitting without a jury and resulted in a decision for the defendant. The case is here on the plaintiff's bill of exceptions to such decision and to certain rulings on the admission of evidence.

[88 R.I. 91] The plaintiff brought his action to recover the sum of $1,000 which he had paid to defendant in accordance with a written agreement entered into between them on June 20, 1955, in the city of New York. Such agreement reads as follows:

'Dated: June 20, 1955

'Received from Bennett Lehner residing at 5 Sweetfern Road, Warwick, Rhode Island ($1,000.00) Dollars as deposit for the purchase of Adam Hat Store #86 located at 55 Asylum Street, Hartford, Conn. subject to the following:

'1. Buyer agrees to purchase fixtures in store excluding signs and hat display fixtures for the sum of $16,000.00 payable $5,000.00 upon the signing of the contract and the balance in equal monthly payments together with interest at the rate of 4 1/2% per annum, over a period of five (5) years commencing on or about July 31, 1955.

'2. Buyer agrees to purchase the furnishing merchandise upon the premises at 62 1/2% of the retail price, payable 50% upon the signing of the contract and the balance in 6 equal monthly payments, together with interest at the rate of 4 1/2% per annum, commencing as of July 31, 1955, or one month from the delivery of the possession of the premises whichever comes earlier.

'3. Buyer agrees to enter into a lease with Adam Hat Stores, Inc. for the remaining period of the lease terminating February 1, 1957 with the minimum annual rental of $4,800.00 with an additional rent of *% of the gross sales in excess of $4,800.00. Lease shall be subject to the approval of the overlandlord. Occupancy will be delivered on or about 1955. Buyer agrees to give three (3) months as security for the full and faithful compliance with the terms of the lease.

'4. Buyer agrees to enter into the Adam franchise agreement for a period of five (5) years and to pay the annual fee of $1,200.00 therefor in each and every year during the term of the agreement as therein provided,[88 R.I. 92] or at the buyer's option the annual fee may be deducted from the hat bonus.

'5. Buyer agrees to enter into the customary Adam agency agreement for a

Page 315

period of five (5) years or the term of the lease whichever is longer.

'6. The above transaction is subject to approval by the company of the buyer's credit rating.

'7. In the event the Buyer shall fail to consumate [sic] this transaction for any reason whatsoever Buyer liability shall not exceed the sum of $1,000.00 representing the deposit herein and thereupon this agreement shall cease and terminate. In the event the Seller is unable to consumate [sic] this transaction for any reason whatsoever, the sole obligation of the Seller shall be to refund the Buyer's deposit, and upon making the refund, this agreement shall wholly cease and terminate, and neither party shall have any further claims against the other by reason of this agreement.

'Adam Hat Stores, Inc.

By [signed] William H. Robbins

'I (we) consent and agree to the foregoing:

[signed] Bennett Lehner'

Sometime thereafter and before October 27, 1955, defendant forwarded certain written instruments to plaintiff to be executed. Such execution was necessary to consummate the transaction of June 20 in accordance with the written agreement. However, by letter of October 27 plaintiff withdrew from the agreement and requested defendant to return his deposit. Prior thereto he had refused to execute the instruments on the ground that they were 'not written as agreed.'

The defendant by letter of November 10, 1955, informed plaintiff that it was ready and willing to complete the transaction and that if he did not execute the instruments [88 R.I. 93] by November 19 it would consider him in default. The plaintiff replied by letter of November 21 that he no longer desired to operate the store. On December 1, 1955, defendant notified plaintiff that by reason of his withdrawal from the agreement it had sustained considerable damage and was compelled to offer the store for sale again on the open market.

The defendant thereafter found another purchaser but at a much lower price than plaintiff had agreed to pay. It claimed that it had suffered a loss greatly in excess of plaintiff's $1,000 deposit and, therefore, refused to refund it. The plaintiff claimed the right to a refund and alleged as ground therefor lack of mutuality in the agreement thus depriving it of validity as a binding contract.

The trial justice in construing the agreement recognized that it did not contain any express promise by defendant to sell, but he nevertheless held that the agreement constituted a valid contract because defendant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wasserman, No. CA 10–061–M.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • September 28, 2012
    ...promise illusory.’ ” Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., 604 A.2d 331, 336 (R.I.1992) (quoting Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 88 R.I. 88, 143 A.2d 313, 317 (1958)). In Crellin, the First Circuit stated that “[i]t is settled law that, when the promised act is conditional on the oc......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wasserman, C. A. No. 10-061-M
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • September 28, 2012
    ...promise illusory.'" Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., 604 A.2d 331, 336 (R.I. 1992) (quoting Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 143 A.2d 313, 317 (R.I. 1958)). In Crellin, the First Circuit stated that "[i]t is settled law that, when the promised act is conditional on the occurrenc......
  • Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., No. 90-441-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 10, 1992
    ...invalid for lack of consideration or mutuality. See generally I Williston on Contracts § 105. Page 336 In Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 88 R.I. 88, 143 A.2d 313 (1958), a party sought to avoid an agreement, charging that the promises lacked mutuality. This court found that the "provision......
  • JPL Livery Services v. State, C.A. PC 06-2570
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • December 26, 2012
    ...binding contract where one party's obligation is triggered by the other party's promise to do something); Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 143 A.2d 313, 317 (1958) ("That the condition applicable to one party is lighter than the condition applicable to the other does not render the favored ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wasserman, No. CA 10–061–M.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • September 28, 2012
    ...promise illusory.’ ” Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., 604 A.2d 331, 336 (R.I.1992) (quoting Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 88 R.I. 88, 143 A.2d 313, 317 (1958)). In Crellin, the First Circuit stated that “[i]t is settled law that, when the promised act is conditional on the oc......
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Wasserman, C. A. No. 10-061-M
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Rhode Island
    • September 28, 2012
    ...promise illusory.'" Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., 604 A.2d 331, 336 (R.I. 1992) (quoting Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 143 A.2d 313, 317 (R.I. 1958)). In Crellin, the First Circuit stated that "[i]t is settled law that, when the promised act is conditional on the occurrenc......
  • Holliston Mills, Inc. v. Citizens Trust Co., No. 90-441-A
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island
    • March 10, 1992
    ...invalid for lack of consideration or mutuality. See generally I Williston on Contracts § 105. Page 336 In Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 88 R.I. 88, 143 A.2d 313 (1958), a party sought to avoid an agreement, charging that the promises lacked mutuality. This court found that the "provision......
  • JPL Livery Services v. State, C.A. PC 06-2570
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Rhode Island
    • December 26, 2012
    ...binding contract where one party's obligation is triggered by the other party's promise to do something); Lehner v. Adam Hat Stores, Inc., 143 A.2d 313, 317 (1958) ("That the condition applicable to one party is lighter than the condition applicable to the other does not render the favored ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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