Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P owns and operates DK Day Spa, which is a 'day spa' located in Lantana Square, a shopping center. Salon (D), a beauty salon, is owned by Dominic Rappucci and is located in the same shopping center. Salon (D) first became a Lantana Square tenant in 1992, and has only offered hair cutting, hair styling, and nail services. Limestone (D), which owns Lantana Square, has entered into leases with both tenants. During late 1996 and early 1997, P was considering opening a day spa business in Lantana Square. Before making any decision, P met with Mr. Rappucci on several occasions to discuss the merits of Lantana Square as a business site. P and Mr. Rappucci knew each other from their employment at another hairdressing establishment, Michael Christopher's Salon. P told Mr. Rappucci that she was considering starting a business that would provide day spa services, but that she did not want to start a business in Lantana Square if she would have to compete with an already existing tenant. P wanted assurance that her day spa service would not conflict with Salon's (D) operations. Mr. Rappucci assured P that he had no intention of ever providing the kind of day spa services that Spa intended to offer. Aware that Salon (D) might potentially offer services that could conflict with P's future business operations, the Limestone (D) required P to resolve any potential conflicts that she and Mr. Rappucci might have before she could enter into a Lantana Square lease. P and Mr. Rappucci each separately told Limestone (D) that any differences and potential conflicts between them had been resolved. P supplied Sean McCue, Limestone's (D) real estate agent, with a list of the services she wanted the exclusive right to provide within Lantana Square. P's list was incorporated into P's lease. Limestone (D) also added certain conditions to carve out all earlier tenancies (including Salon (D)) so as to exclude those tenancies from the exclusive rights in P's Spa Addendum. In the fall of 2000, Salon's (D) adjacent tenant vacated its Lantana Square leasehold, and Salon (D) decided to expand its facilities by taking over that space. On October 31, 2000, Salon (D) executed an amendment to its lease, which increased its leased space and adjusted its rent while retaining all the other terms of its current lease. Salon (D) is remodeling its new space, which it intends to use to add additional hair cutting and styling salons, and manicure and pedicure stations. Some of those intended services will conflict with P's exclusive-use rights described in the Spa Addendum, because Salon (D) intends to use a portion of its new facilities as a day spa. P learned about the spa services from the Yellow Pages and protested to Limestone (D). Limestone (D), by letter, informed Salon (D) that it did not consent to the use of the premises for a day spa. P then filed this action for a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction that would prevent Salon (D) and Limestone (D) from violating the exclusive rights provision of the Spa Addendum. Limestone (D) sided with Salon (D), claiming the prior tenant exception in the Spa Addendum. The provision states: Exclusive Right. Tenant has the exclusive right to the following: Tanning, facials, Spa Massage and Body Treatments, Waxing, Electrolysis, Make-up artistry, Make-up facial products. Landlord will not permit any other Tenant to offer these services as a primary use. Leases executed prior to the date of this Lease are excluded.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.