Contracts — misrepresentation

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Civil

Contracts — misrepresentation

It was not a misrepresentation to state that no ordinances restricted a property’s use, although ordinances barred stand-alone fast food restaurants.

“Given the lack of any reference in the lease to a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through, there is no indication in the facts that the uses of the property, as they are stated in Paragraph 5 of the lease, were prevented.  There is no indication that any of the uses specified in Paragraph 5 cannot be performed at a sit-down restaurant, which is a permitted use under the City of Milwaukee zoning code.  Rather, the fact that Midwest Hospitality was granted a special use permit specifically allowing use of the property as a Church’s Chicken restaurant soundly refutes the premise that Midwest Hospitality was prevented from using the property for any of the purposes stated in Paragraph 5.”

“We further observe that even if we accepted Midwest Hospitality’s argument that there is an ‘undisputed understanding of Church’s Chicken’ as a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through and that the representation incorporates that ‘undisputed understanding,’ the representation is still not false under these facts.  The circuit court expressly found that when the special use permit was granted by the City of Milwaukee, Midwest Hospitality was allowed to operate a Church’s Chicken fast-food restaurant with a drive-through.”

Reversed and Remanded.

2011AP1451 Tufail v. Midwest Hospitality, LLC

Bradley, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Hale, Christopher T., Milwaukee; Condon, Jacques C., Brookfield; Frank, Andy G., Milwaukee; For Respondent: Rose, Douglas W., Milwaukee; LoCoco, Lora L., Milwaukee