Moe and Joe Rappaport (Tenants) leased space in a shopping mall owned by Bermuda Avenue Shopping Center Associates, L.P. (Landlord), to use as an indoor golf arcade. The lease was signed, and Tenants were given possession of the leased premises. Landlord did not tell Tenants about the extensive renovations planned for the mall. For one month, the golf arcade was busy and earned a net profit. However, at the end of the month, renovation of the mall began in front of the arcade. According to Tenants, their store sign was taken down, there was debris and dust in front of the store, the sidewalks and parking spaces in front of the store were taken away, and their business “died.” Tenants closed their arcade approximately one month later and sued Landlord for damages. Landlord counterclaimed, seeking to recover lost rental income. Did Landlord act ethically in not explaining the planned renovations to Tenants? Did Tenants act ethically in terminating the lease? Were Tenants constructively evicted from the leased premise? Who wins? Bermuda Avenue Shopping Center Associates v. Rappaport, 565 So. 2d 805, 1990 Fla. App. Lexis 5354 ( Court of Appeal of Florida)