Walker v. Keith
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
| Walker v. Keith | |
| Court | Kentucky Court of Appeals |
|---|---|
| Citation | 382 S.W.2d 198 |
| Date decided | October 16, 1964 |
Facts
- Walker = the landlord = plaintiff in the appeal court
- Keith = a lease-holder = the defendant = tenant
- Walker leased a small lot to Keith for 10 years at $100/month
- At the end of the 10 years, then tenant (Keith) had the option to renew the lease
- At the end of the 10 years, the monthly rent could jump
- At the end of the 10 years, the 2 parties couldn't agree on the monthly rent amount
Procedural History
- Keith sued Walker to enforce the renewal option.
- The Kentucky trial court ruled in favor of Keith.
- Walker was ordered to rent his lot out to Keith at $125/month.
Issues
Is a contract to enter a future covenant enforceable if it fails to specify all essential terms of the future covenant?
Holding
Commissioner Clay: A contract to form a future covenant must specify all essential terms of the future covenant, leaving nothing for further negotiations.
The renewal clause is un-enforceable. Decision in favor of Walker (the landlord).Judgment
Reversed
Reasons
- A lease is a contract.
- Rent is a material term of any lease.
Resources
