Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc. v. Eugene
Citations: 786 So. 2d 184; 1 La.App. 5 Cir. 94; 2001 La. App. LEXIS 834; 2001 WL 417247Docket: No. 01-CA-94
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal; April 24, 2001; Louisiana; State Appellate Court
An appeal by Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc. regarding a lease contract with Alvin L. Eugene was adjudicated, with the trial court finding the lease defective due to a lack of agreement on price, affirming this decision. The dispute arose after negotiations commenced in early 1998 between Pelican's president, John Jackson, and landowner Eugene for a highway advertising sign site. The lease, signed on July 9, 1998, stipulated a twenty-one-year term and included ambiguous payment clauses regarding rental amounts and conditions for payment commencement. Eugene contested the validity of the lease, claiming that the rental terms were never agreed upon and returned a $1,500 check from Jackson, stating it was insufficient to bind the lease and asserting that no clear terms were established. Despite Jackson's claims of mutual understanding regarding a rental range of $4,000 per year and discounts for early payment, Eugene maintained he signed the document solely to assist Jackson in obtaining a tree-cutting permit while in Louisiana briefly, without agreeing to the specified amounts. The trial judge concluded that there was no consent on the price, aligning with Louisiana Civil Code Article 2670, and thus no valid lease was formed. The claims for damages were also dismissed as no evidence was presented. Pelican Outdoor Advertising, Inc. subsequently appealed the ruling. Eugene stated that the rental amount was not agreed upon and that Jackson was aware of this. Glen, Eugene’s brother and a witness, testified that Jackson needed the document for a tree cutting application and that discussions regarding the lease terms would occur later. The trial judge found Eugene more credible and concluded there was no meeting of the minds regarding the rental price, leading her to deny specific performance of the lease. The appellant argued that the judge erred by not enforcing the lease, claiming it was unambiguous, and contended that extrinsic evidence should not have been considered without a finding of ambiguity. However, the judge referenced Louisiana Civil Code Articles 1832, 1839, and 1848, stating that while extrinsic evidence is generally inadmissible to alter a written contract, it is permissible to prove a simulation. Eugene claimed the lease was a simulation intended only to assist Jackson with his application, which Jackson disputed. The trial judge favored Eugene's credibility. The discussed yearly rental of $4,000, totaling $84,000 over 21 years, was significantly reduced for early payment, which Eugene rejected, influencing the judge's decision. The standard of review was manifest error, and since the judge resolved conflicting testimonies in Eugene’s favor, the court found no error. The appellant's argument that ambiguities should be construed against Eugene was dismissed, as the core issue was whether the document constituted a valid lease or a simulation. The district court's judgment was affirmed.