The opinion of the court was delivered by: MEANEY
This is an action to cancel a lease and to recover damages based upon allegations that David Simon, acting for himself and in behalf of the other defendants, made false and deceitful representations which induced plaintiff to enter into a lease, led plaintiff to make expenditures for architectural services, and caused a loss of profits in plaintiff's business.
Defendants filed a counterclaim also seeking cancellation of the lease alleging that plaintiff has failed to fulfill the obligations of the lease, has signified an intention to breach the terms of the lease and abandon the premises, and has committed waste. Jurisdiction is found by reason of diversity of citizenship of the parties and the fact that the sum in controversy exceeds $ 3,000.
1. The plaintiff, a New York corporation, engaged in the manufacture of perfumes, essential oils and aromatic flavors, sought the lease of a factory in New Jersey.
2. Negotiations were conducted during May and June of 1946, between plaintiff and David Simon, acting in behalf of all the defendants, for the lease of a factory building in Englewood, N.J., which was then in the process of construction.
3. Prior to the execution of the lease there was a discussion between Mr. Chaleyer, president of the plaintiff corporation, and David Simon in which Mr. Simon was informed of the type of business plaintiff was engaged in and the type of equipment plaintiff would use on the premises to be leased.
4. After the discussion Mr. Chaleyer determined that the building could be used for plaintiff's business.
5. There were no discussions about the Civilian Production Administration, hereinafter referred to as CPA.
6. Prior to entering into negotiations with the plaintiff corporation, the defendants had secured an authorization from the CPA to construct four buildings, one of which is now involved in this action. The application form contained the statements:
'Building being built for processing of food to be operated by a veteran of World War II.
'Building being built for the manufacture of kitchen cabinets providing employment for War Veterans and others.'
7. Plaintiff's officers or agents were not informed of the basis on which the CPA approved the project until after the lease had been signed.
8. On June 27, 1946 a lease for 20 years was signed by the parties, the terms of which provided for completion and equipping of the building by plaintiff.
9. The CPA subsequently rejected plaintiff's application to complete the building because plaintiff did not qualify ...