Kopel v. Campanile (In Re Kopel)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that “enforcement of a cross-default provision should not be refused where to do so would thwart the non-debtor party’s bargain.”
• stating that when several documents are construed as one contract the debtor must assume or reject them together
• enforcing cross-default clause in lease and collateral note where they were “contemporaneously executed as necessary elements of the same transaction, such that there would have been no transaction without each of the other agreements”
• “[Debtor] has not even argued that he could have entered into the Lease without also entering into the Non-Lease Agreements.”
• “A debtor cannot simply retain the favorable and excise the burdensome provisions of an agreement.”
• “[Debtor] has not even argued that he 23 could have entered into the Lease without also entering into the 24 Non–Lease Agreements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).