Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AMOCO OIL COMPANY v. ROBERT F. BURNS (08/03/79)

August 3, 1979

THE AMOCO OIL COMPANY,
v.
ROBERT F. BURNS, APPELLANT. THE AMOCO OIL COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. ROBERT F. BURNS



No. 8 October Term, 1979, No. 59 October Term, 1979, Appeal from Orders of the Court of Common Pleas, Civil Action, Law - Bucks County, entered December 20, 1978 at No. 77-9557-08-6.

COUNSEL

Norman P. Zarwin, Philadelphia, for appellant at No. 8 and appellee at No. 59.

William A. DeStefano, Philadelphia, for appellant at No. 59 and appellee at No. 8.

Price, Hoffman and Dowling, JJ.

Author: Hoffman

[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 392]

Landlord Amoco Oil Company (Amoco) sued its holdover tenant, Robert F. Burns, in ejectment and trespass for damages and mesne profits caused by Burns' possession beyond the lease term. After a non-jury trial, the court awarded possession to Amoco but denied damages. Both parties filed exceptions, which the lower court denied. Both Burns and Amoco have appealed from the order denying their exceptions.

Amoco purchased the land in question in 1966 and constructed a two-bay gasoline service station thereon. Amoco leased the station to Burns on August 11, 1967. The last lease executed by the parties was for a one-year term ending September 11, 1976, with automatic renewals for two successive one-year terms unless either party gave written notice of cancellation prior*fn1 to the end of the initial or renewal term. Other provisions of the lease give the parties the right to cancel the lease in mid-term for enumerated "good cause" reasons. The lease automatically renewed itself for the first additional term, but on June 8, 1977, Amoco gave written notice of cancellation of the last additional term and

[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 393]

    directed Burns to vacate the premises effective September 11, 1977. Amoco offered to sell the premises to Burns for $140,000, which he refused. Subsequently Amoco contracted to sell the property to the U-Haul Company of Delaware Valley (U-Haul) for $140,000, contingent upon Burns' timely vacation of the premises. Settlement was scheduled for December 1, 1977, but when Burns refused to surrender possession at the end of the term, U-Haul withdrew its offer and Amoco returned U-Haul's $10,000 deposit. During the pendency of the litigation below, the parties entered into a stipulation without prejudice whereby Amoco continued to sell Burns gasoline and other Amoco products. After entry of its order, the court below granted a supersedeas conditioned upon the positing of $11,000 security bond. However, Burns did not post bond and vacated the premises on or about March 27, 1979.

At trial, Amoco officials testified that during 1976 they decided not to renew Burns' lease because his diminishing volume of sales was making it unprofitable for Amoco to maintain the station.*fn2 An Amoco economic analyst testified that Amoco lost $2,000, $7,109, and $11,840, in 1975, 1976, and 1977, respectively on Burns' station. Burns testified that the lack of business at his station was not due to any dereliction of his own, but was due to Amoco's failure to take the following steps to improve business: (1) construct a high rise sign to attract passing motorists from the recently constructed Interstate Highway 95; (2) convert one island into self-service pumps,*fn3 and (3) reduce the price of gasoline sold to him so he could engage in effective price competition with other nearby stations. Regarding this evidence, the court found as follows: "Executive personnel of the corporation

[ 268 Pa. Super. Page 394]

    stated the reasons why these actions were not taken and the court concludes that the decisions were made in accordance with good faith business judgment. The weight of evidence is that even if [Amoco] had complied with [Burns'] requests in these areas, the resulting effect would be insufficient to warrant continuing the operation of the business."

Although the parties' last executed lease agreement was on September 11, 1975, prior to the effective date of the Gasoline Act,*fn4 the Act nonetheless is applicable to the instant case because it was renewed on September 11, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.