Osprey Case

Osprey Case - Logan Cooper BLAW 3201-10 Chapter 11 Case...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–4. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Logan Cooper BLAW 3201-10 Chapter 11 Case Brief Osprey L.L.C. v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co. Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1999. 984 P.2d 194. Facts: Osprey leased a store to Kelly-Moore Paint Company in Edmond, Oklahoma. The lease was for 15 years with two five-year renewal options. The terms required that in order to renew the lease, Kelly-Moore must give written notification six months before the lease expiration. The notification could “ may be either delivered personally or by depositing in United States mail.” On the last day of the notification deadline of the first five-year term, Kelly-Moore sent notification to Osprey via fax at 5:28 PM. Phone records indicated that Osprey received the fax, although Osprey denies this. At the end of the five-year period, Osprey filled suit with trial court to evict Kelly-Moore on the basis that the contract required renewal notification in person or by mail. The trial court granted judgment in favor of Kelly-Moore, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the judgment in favor of Osprey, and Kelly Moore appealed to the Oklahoma Supreme Court. Issue: Was a fax transmission by Kelly-Moore sufficient notification of renewal of lease? Decision: The Oklahoma Supreme Court vacated the decision by the Court of Civil Appeals and affirmed the decision by the trial court. The court ruled that the “faxed delivery … was sufficient to exercise … the renewal option of the lease.” Reason: In the lease contract Osprey stipulated that notice shall be given in writing and may be done in person or by mail. The court reasoned that Osprey usage of the words “shall” versus “may” were intentional differences. The shall meant that it had to be in
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Logan Cooper BLAW 3201-10 Chapter 11 Case Brief writing no exceptions, but may meant than an appropriate form would be personally or by mail, but other methods of deliver not stipulated could occur. Since the court established that an alternate delivery method could be used, the court then examined whether fax transmission was an appropriate alternate method. The court said that “the fax served the same function and the same purpose” as the suggested methods. Despite Kelly-Moore’s contention that it did not receive the fax, the court decided it was reasonable to conclude that Kelly-Moore was accurately and timely informed of Osprey’s intentions to renew the lease, and that they were properly notified in accordance with the lease agreement.
Background image of page 2
Logan Cooper BLAW 3201-10 Chapter 11 Case Brief Osprey v. Kelly-Moore Paint Co. 1999 OK 50 984 P.2d 194 70 OBJ 1809 Case Number: 90206 Decided: 05/25/1999 Mandate Issued: 06/24/1999 Supreme Court of Oklahoma OSPREY L.L.C., a limited liability company, Plaintiff/Appellant, v.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 4
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 8

Osprey Case - Logan Cooper BLAW 3201-10 Chapter 11 Case...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 4. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online