## Facts

- An optometrist entered a written three-year agreement to operate a “first-class optical department” inside a San Francisco department store.
- The store would designate the space to be occupied and provide utilities and services (light, heat, water, telephone, elevator).
- The optometrist would supply equipment, fixtures, and showcases consistent with store style and pay the store 20% of total monthly sales.
- Daily receipts were to be deposited with the store’s cashier; the store would account to the optometrist after deductions for items such as rental, advertising, and uncollectible bills.
- The optometrist bought merchandise in his own name and credit and carried liability insurance indemnifying the store for negligence by him or his employees.
- The agreement restricted assignment without the store’s written consent and required surrender of the premises at the end of the stated term.
- The optometrist took possession of designated rooms and operated for more than two years.
- The store purported to cancel for an alleged violation of the daily-deposit requirement, demanded that he vacate, then removed his instruments and merchandise and excluded him from the rooms.
- The store claimed the agreement was a revocable license; the optometrist claimed it was a lease and that the exclusion was an unlawful eviction.

## Issues

1. Whether the parties’ agreement created a leasehold estate or only a revocable license to conduct business on the premises.
2. If the agreement was a lease, whether the store’s exclusion of the optometrist constituted wrongful eviction.
3. What damages were recoverable for the eviction, including the extent to which claimed items were too speculative.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court held the agreement created a lease rather than a mere license.
- The Court sustained the determination that the optometrist was wrongfully evicted when the store removed his property and excluded him from the premises.
- The Court addressed the proper measure and components of damages, recognizing limits on recovery for speculative amounts.

## Legal Principles

- The lease-versus-license classification turns on the parties’ intent as shown by the instrument and circumstances, with special weight on whether the occupant is granted possession for a term.
- Lease-type language (e.g., references to a “lease,” a defined “term,” restrictions on assignment, and a duty to surrender at term end) supports finding a lease despite a setting within a larger business premises.
- A commercial arrangement inside another’s building can still be a lease when the occupant maintains a distinct area for independent business operations and assumes typical tenant-like risks and obligations.
- Once a lease is found, the landlord’s physical exclusion of the tenant and removal of the tenant’s goods constitutes an eviction giving rise to damages.
- Damage recovery for wrongful eviction may include provable losses flowing from the eviction, but courts may deny amounts not established with reasonable certainty.

## Conclusion

The court treated a percentage-of-sales department-store concession agreement as a lease where the contract and performance showed a grant of possessory rights for a fixed term, making the store’s lockout an eviction and supporting damages subject to proof and limits on speculation.


Beckett v. City of Paris Dry Goods Co., 14 Cal. 2d 633, 96 P.2d 122 (Cal. 1939)