Buffalo Ridge Corp. v. Lamar Advertising of South Dakota, Inc., 793 N.W.2d 809

In 2001, Flynn Advertising leased land along I-90 near Sioux Falls to Buffalo Ridge for billboard construction; four leases covered five sites with three-year terms and automatic three-year renewals, and a purchase option for Buffalo Ridge to acquire all materials on the structures at replacement value if terms were not renewed.
Flynn assigned its lease interests to Lamar Outdoor Advertising of South Dakota, Inc. in 2006, and Buffalo Ridge began terminating leases in 2006, proposing higher rents and a month-to-month arrangement.
Buffalo Ridge informed Lamar of a new rent rate ($750 per billboard per month) with no mutual agreement; Lamar declined and continued advertising revenue while paying the old rent, which Buffalo Ridge did not cash.
Buffalo Ridge ultimately sued in 2007 seeking eviction, an injunction to stop Lamar from removing structures, to exercise its purchase option, and for damages including past due rent and profits.
Trial court found Lamar owned the billboard materials used but subject to Buffalo Ridge’s purchase option for certain materials, and that the parties were in “limbo” on terms; court allowed a 30-day period for Buffalo Ridge to exercise its option, then 30 more for Lamar to remove its property.
On appeal, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded to determine the correct exercise date of the option and to address Buffalo Ridge’s damages for Lamar’s continued occupation and related issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When was Buffalo Ridge’s option to purchase exercised?	Buffalo Ridge argues the option was exercised on December 27, 2007.	Lamar contends the trial court’s date (November 1, 2006) should control or that the stipulation was not properly applied.	Option exercised on December 27, 2007; remand for proper damages determination.
Whether Lamar was a willful holdover tenant under SDCL 21-3-8	Buffalo Ridge should be entitled to holdover damages for Lamar’s continued occupancy.	Lamar argues no willful holdover since there was negotiation and no notice to quit.	Not a willful holdover; no SDCL 21-3-8 damages awarded; remand for damages analysis.
Whether Buffalo Ridge’s May 15, 2008 tender was unconditional	Buffalo Ridge contends tender stopped interest.	Tender was conditional on Lamar accepting replacement value and the tendered checks.	Tender was conditional; interest not tolled.
Damages for Lamar’s continued occupation after expiration	Buffalo Ridge seeks damages/restitution for occupation and uncashed checks.	Lamar argues no damages beyond current replacement value; objections moot class.	Court erred in failing to award damages or restitution; remand for proper damages determination.

Hofeldt v. Mehling, 658 N.W.2d 783 (S.D. 2003) (standard for reviewing findings of fact; clear-error and de novo review)
Cobbs v. Allied Chem. Corp., 661 A.2d 1375 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995) (parties may bind themselves by stipulation on matters other than jurisdiction)
Gerlach v. State, 74 N.W.2d 662 (S.D. 2008) (recognizes limitations of stipulations affecting judicial prerogatives)
Adrian v. McKinnie, 684 N.W.2d 91 (S.D. 2004) (tender and satisfaction principles in contract/obligation context)
Dougherty v. Beckman, 347 N.W.2d 587 (S.D. 1984) (tender must be for full obligation; conditional tender governs)
Mr. Sign Studios, Inc. v. Miguel, 877 So.2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004) (outside authority cited on option expiration debates)
Synergy Gas Corp. v. H.M. Orsburn & Son, Inc., 689 S.W.2d 594 (Ark. Ct. App. 1985) (illustrates lease-option exhaustion principles)