The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to enter into a lease agreement between the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) and the person holding sectional ownership of each of the instant stores became impossible or non-performance of the obligation.

Examining the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the interpretation of expression of intent, impossibility of performance, refusal of performance, and the principle of pleading, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.