- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 4/19/16 at 9:35 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
...they didn't violate the law by including that provision in the leases excluding Izzo's.
I'm not up on the unfair trade aspect of this mess, but I'm not positive such a bold statement will prove to be true.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 9:46 am to OTIS2
I think it may be on shaky ground depending on the evidence. You start getting into anti-trust law when you are setting a radius to prevent competition. My brief google reading suggests that they hold up in court when it is a proper distance (not crazy like 5 miles...etc) and when there is a legit business reason to protect the interest of the business. In this case, it really does read like a personal vendetta. (perhaps a justified case of the red-arse, but maybe not sound legally on paper)
I'm a fan of both companies' products, so I simply find the whole thing interesting. I'm far from a lawyer though.
I'm a fan of both companies' products, so I simply find the whole thing interesting. I'm far from a lawyer though.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 9:58 am to RaginCajunz
You are conflating two concepts.
1) The radius issue is a lease provision favoring the LANDLORD that prohibits a tenant from operating a second location of its business within a certain distance of the leased premises. Very common.
2) The exclusion issue is a lease provision favoring the TENANT that prohibits the Landlord from leasing space to a competing business. These can be very broad (i.e., "hair salon") or very specific (i.e., "Paris Parker"). These provisions are in every single commercial lease in a shopping center.
The Izzo's issue deals with the 2nd issue...not the first.
1) The radius issue is a lease provision favoring the LANDLORD that prohibits a tenant from operating a second location of its business within a certain distance of the leased premises. Very common.
2) The exclusion issue is a lease provision favoring the TENANT that prohibits the Landlord from leasing space to a competing business. These can be very broad (i.e., "hair salon") or very specific (i.e., "Paris Parker"). These provisions are in every single commercial lease in a shopping center.
The Izzo's issue deals with the 2nd issue...not the first.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 10:36 am to Ex-Popcorn
quote:
You are conflating two concepts.
1) The radius issue is a lease provision favoring the LANDLORD that prohibits a tenant from operating a second location of its business within a certain distance of the leased premises. Very common.
2) The exclusion issue is a lease provision favoring the TENANT that prohibits the Landlord from leasing space to a competing business. These can be very broad (i.e., "hair salon") or very specific (i.e., "Paris Parker"). These provisions are in every single commercial lease in a shopping center.
The Izzo's issue deals with the 2nd issue...not the first.
That makes sense. It seems like #2 would still be questionable with the evidence of removing Izzo's but allowing Moe's into Juban? In that case you are not preserving the tenant from a competing businesses, but purposefully icing one company out. To me that sounds like a retaliation designed to stifle commerce of Izzo's vs preserving the business interest of Rouses.
Posted on 4/19/16 at 11:35 am to RaginCajunz
really doesn't matter than they eliminate 1 and allow others. Perhaps they feel Izzo's is a bigger competitor to what they are trying to do? Identifying a business by name and allowing others similarly situated happens all the time.
And, who cares what their real motive is. Perhaps they truly hate Izzos. Juban wanted Rouse's. Rouse's says, "fine...but we hate Izzo's and the people who run it. We won't sign a lease unless you agree not to lease to them." Juban weighed the costs/benefits and agreed. They didn't have to. But, they chose to. No one held a gun to their head.
Rouse's is perfectly within its rights to agree to only open shops where it wants to and surrounded by the tenants it desires.
But, people win shaky lawsuits all the time. Who knows.
And, who cares what their real motive is. Perhaps they truly hate Izzos. Juban wanted Rouse's. Rouse's says, "fine...but we hate Izzo's and the people who run it. We won't sign a lease unless you agree not to lease to them." Juban weighed the costs/benefits and agreed. They didn't have to. But, they chose to. No one held a gun to their head.
Rouse's is perfectly within its rights to agree to only open shops where it wants to and surrounded by the tenants it desires.
But, people win shaky lawsuits all the time. Who knows.
This post was edited on 4/19/16 at 11:37 am
Posted on 4/19/16 at 3:14 pm to RaginCajunz
What McDonald's manual?
Posted on 4/19/16 at 4:49 pm to Fewer Kilometers
GOAT
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News