Each party should have the right to access the other party`s land for vehicle parking and vehicle access and pedestrian access. For example, customers and employees of a large retail business must park anywhere in the mall (subject to agreement from the parties to provide special spaces for staff parking) and go anywhere inside the mall. For customers of mall residents, the property appears to be party property and will be operated as a fully integrated shopping mall. Each party must also “attach” to the procurement systems of the other parties, which is most common when the large retailer “attaches” to the developer`s supply systems for the mall. In addition, parties may need certain intervention rights if their awnings or foundations encroach only minimally on the property of the other party. All of the above rights would take the form of “facilitations” and should be explained in detail in the REA. These “facilitations” would effectively allow one party not to use exclusively the other party`s assets. I believe that, in this case, the recording allows for competing reasonable conclusions as to whether or not Lowe made “all commercially reasonable efforts.” If the language of the agreement had simply required Lowes to “make reasonable efforts” or “reasonable commercial efforts” to obtain the necessary zoning, I might have been inclined to accept the majority`s decision that upheld the court`s award of summary judgment. However, I believe that the inclusion of the word “all” in the agreement excludes such a finding.
It is the duty of a court to implement all parts of a written contract where it can be done with the express intent of the parties. Ford Motor Co. v. John L. Frazier Sons Co. (1964), 8 Ohio App.2d 158, 161. This is particularly the case when the language in question, which was approved by two demanding companies, was still defined by an Ohio court as a case. While the record is evidence that Lowe did make economically reasonable efforts to obtain the necessary reassignment, the word “all” necessarily focuses our analysis on what Lowe did not do. In its judgment, the Tribunal found that Lowe had satisfied the need to “make reasonable efforts.” However, the fact that Lowe spent considerable sums of money, hired competent people to assist them in their efforts and demonstrated his commitment to the desired outcome does not legally indicate that Lowe has made “all economicly rational efforts” in the present circumstances. On the contrary, I would like to note that