However, although our language was inapt, it need not cause an unjust result because, being ambiguous, it is susceptible to construction following established principles of contract interpretation. That is what the court did on remand in the very well-reasoned case of Arthur Treacher's c. v. Chillum Terrace c. Partnership, 347 A.2d 568 (Md. 1975), where the identical language was used in an initial opinion setting the measure of damages for the anticipatory breach of a lease for a restaurant which was to have been renovated to the proposed lessee's specifications. See Arthur Treacher's c. v. Chillum Terrace c. Partnership, 327 A.2d 282 (Md. 1974).
Denied February 3, 1976Petition denied February 3, 1976. Opinion of Court of Special Appeals reported: 29 Md. App. 320.
Accordingly, as a general rule, mere nonpossession will not relieve a proposed lessee of liability in Missouri. See 85 A.L.R.3rd, LESSEE'S REFUSAL TO TAKE POSSESSION ยง 5, p. 524, citing Donovan v. Sckoenhofen Brewing Co., 92 Mo.App. 341, later app 102 Mo.App. 427, 76 S.W. 715 (Mo. App. 1903); Arthur Treacher's Fish Chips, Inc. v. Chillum Terrace Limited Partnership, 272 Md. 720, 327 A.2d 282, later app 29 Md. App. 320, 347 A.2d 568 (1975); United Theatres Co. v. United States, 67 Ct.Cl. 432, 1929 WL 2604 (1929). Kimack's first issue on appeal contends that Owners are not entitled to retain the prepaid rent.