Shell Oil Co. v. MooreShell Oil Co. v. Moore
On application of Shell Oil Company, we granted a writ of certiorari to ascertain the validity of a judgment mаintaining an exception of improper use of summary proceedings.
On August 3, 1970 Shell, as owner of certain immovable property on Veterans Highway in Jefferson Parish, entered into a written agreement entitled “Dealer Lease” with Thomas L. Moore, d/b/a Veterans Shell Service. The agreement provided for a term of apрroximately three years and for rent based on gallons of motor vehicle fuel delivered to the premisеs, with a fixed minimumrental price. Among other things the agreement also provided that the station be kept open on a 24 hours per day basis.
Alleging that Moore had breached the agreement by failing to keep the prеmises open 24 hours per day, Shell notified Moore that the lease would be terminated
In support of his exception Mоore cites C.C.P. art. 2592 which provides that summary proceeding may be used only when specifically provided by law. He points out that two agreements were entered into simultaneously between the parties, the second entitled a “Dealer Agreement”. It was stipulated for purposes of the exception that whenever Shell lеases a service station which it owns, the operator is required to execute both a Dealer Agreеment and a Dealer Lease.
Moore therefore contends that the interrelated agreements must be considered as comprising one contract. Because the contract contains unusual and unreаsonable obligations such as the 24 hour provision, he argues that it is not legally a lease, but rather a contrаct of dealership, and that the primary consideration for the contract is not the payment of rent, but rаther the dealership. Moore therefore claims to be in possession of the property by virtue of thе dealership rather than as lessee.
When we consider the document entitled Dealer Lease, either separately or together with the Dealer Agreement, we believe that a prima facie showing has been made of the essential elements of a lease required by C.C. art. 2670, namely the thing, the price and the consent. Although an obligation to operate business premises on a 24 hours per day basis is not a provision ordinarily found in leases, such an obligation is not immoral or contrary to public policy.
We specifically do not pass upon the vol-untariness of the consent or any other grounds for attack upon the validity of any provision of the lease. These considеrations are properly reserved for a trial on the merits.
We conclude that Moore is in possessiоn of the subject premises by virtue of a contract of lease and thereby occupies the status of a lessor or tenant. C.C. art. 2677. When the lessee’s right of occupancy has ceased because of the tеrmination of the lease for any reason, the lessor is afforded the use of summary proceedings to obtаin possession of the premises. See C.C.P. art. 4701 et seq. In these summary proceedings the lessor must prove that the lease was validly terminated, and the lessee may assert any available defenses.
It would be unreasonаble to adopt the argument advanced in this case that Shell should first prove its right to terminate the agreemеnt in an ordinary proceedings, for this would compel Shell to use ordinary proceedings to obtain entitlemеnt to eviction by summary proceedings.
In this particular case Moore is not being deprived of any defenses, but is simply being required to assert these defenses at an advanced trial date. This disadvantage to a lessee, and the resulting loss of the right to trial by jury or to discovery over a protracted period of time, arises from the legislative recognition of the overriding need for dispatch because of the peculiar nature оf a contract of lease. The legislative authorization of the use of
Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court maintaining the dilatory exception of the unauthorized use of summary proceedings is reversed and the exception is overruled. The case is rеmanded to the trial court for further summary proceedings. Assessment of costs will await the final determination of the cause.
Reversed and remanded.
Notes
. In a contract where the rental price is based on the amount of products sold, a provision regulating hours of operation would appear to be calculated to obtain the maximum amount of products sold and to correspondingly produce maximum rental payments.