- 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
re: Izzo's Sues Rouses
Posted on 4/18/16 at 7:44 pm to Giantkiller
Posted on 4/18/16 at 7:44 pm to Giantkiller
quote:
I don't know if it's legal or not to specifically list a business by name as an exclusion to lease to, or whatever. But what I do know is this sounds like wacky behavior for a grocery store chain to engage in. What's worse? Letting Izzo's into the shopping center with you? Or keeping them out and eventually goading them into filing a super huge, very public lawsuit against you?
Not only is perfectly legal it is completely standard. If a grocery store is moving in to a center they would say no butchers, no fish sellers, no produce sellers, no pharmacy (if they have a pharmacy), etc. It is a business agreement between two companies so they can work out and exclude anything they want.
Note: I'm not an attorney.
2
Posted on 4/18/16 at 7:58 pm to nolanola
No you are correct. Almost every single lease in a large retail has these kind of exceptions or "exclusives". Nobody else that serves Mexican burritos would be standard. And since Rouses is a much more significant tenant (probably the anchor) the landlord would gladly agree to exclude Izzo's.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 7:59 pm to nolanola
quote:
only is perfectly legal it is completely standard. If a grocery store is moving in to a center they would say no butchers, no fish sellers, no produce sellers, no pharmacy (if they have a pharmacy), etc. It is a business agreement between two companies so they can work out and exclude anything they want.
I agree. It's not illegal for two business people to make an agreement to do business under certian criteria as long as it's legal. This seems to me nothing but Butthurt from Izzo's. Stealing recipies is a different story of course, but Rouses has multiple types of made-to-order foods in their store. I don't blame them for targeting any business like Izzos to protect their own. You know what I say to Izzos? Make a better burrito, people will come to wherever your location is.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:03 pm to Lsupimp
If you look at the suit, Izzos was excluded but they didn't specify Mexican food, just Izzos. Now there is a moes in the space Izzos had agreed to go into.
Also, it appears the new pizza concept they have was denied entree into juban because rouses said no to any restaurant they operate. That seems illegal to me.
Also, it appears the new pizza concept they have was denied entree into juban because rouses said no to any restaurant they operate. That seems illegal to me.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:05 pm to TheVig10
quote:
Also, it appears the new pizza concept they have was denied entree into juban because rouses said no to any restaurant they operate. That seems illegal to me.
Yeah it smells like some bullshite. They aren't targeting certain food types. They are specifically tagerting THAT company out of spite.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:07 pm to SG_Geaux
It's business. Why shouldn't you be allowed to exclude people who have harmed your business in the past?
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:08 pm to SG_Geaux
It's definitely some bullshite. the petition reads like direct targeting which makes zero sense. Rouses is far too large to be dealing with someone Izzos size. Looks like corporate bullying.....
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:13 pm to TheVig10
Yeah that is certainly different to exclude a company by name and allow their competitors. I still think they don't have a case.But either way, it demonstrates why you have to handle things professionally with other companies. I'm guessing at the heart of this is one angry a-hole facing off against another angry a-hole.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 8:53 pm to Lsupimp
It's does look like a pissing contest that turned south. Still not sure what rouses is so butthurt over to begin with to even exclude Izzos.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 9:28 pm to TheVig10
So it's a big secret recipe to throw a bunch of crap into a tortilla and roll it up? You know... right there in front of the customers?
This is the kind of secret like when Ellen Degeneres came out of the closet.
This is the kind of secret like when Ellen Degeneres came out of the closet.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 9:49 pm to TheVig10
How is it any different than Rouses saying they don't want a Walmart in the shopping center, because I'd bet my left nut they say no Walmarts.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 9:54 pm to TheVig10
"Izzo's recipe book"
I thought the point was you told them what to put in it.
Rouses can figure out how to season meat.
I thought the point was you told them what to put in it.
Rouses can figure out how to season meat. Posted on 4/18/16 at 9:56 pm to CaptainsWafer
This is much different. Every lease has exclusives in regards to genres of food and or types of goods being sold. Subway wouldn't let a firehouse subs move in next door. Rouses had Izzos excluded by name, then allowed a direct competitor to enter their location. It's not as if rouses had an exclusive on burritos then kept everyone out. On top of that, they then had the company's new pizza restaurant blocked from entering. Under what grounds? We don't like Izzos? What's that have to do with a pizza restaurant?
Posted on 4/18/16 at 9:57 pm to TheVig10
I like Izzo's. I can't imagine they filed suit based on nothing. This thing has teeth.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:02 pm to TheVig10
Thanks, attorney for Izzo's.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:04 pm to Artie Rome
quote:
like Izzo's. I can't imagine they filed suit based on nothing. This thing has teeth.
I do too. But I don't confuse fondness for food with legally/ethically correct business practices. Sounds kinda silly.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:06 pm to TheVig10
If rouses has the clout, why can't they specifically negotiate the right of first refusal on whoever the frick they want to keep out?
This post was edited on 4/18/16 at 10:07 pm
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:13 pm to Havoc
I was completely wrong. Won't be the last time. I promise.
This post was edited on 4/18/16 at 10:15 pm
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:28 pm to Artie Rome
Can someone run a cross-check for the people knighting for Izzo's in this thread on their thoughts on SJW's. "Woe is Izzo's, this is so unfair."
Uh, it's business.
Uh, it's business.
Posted on 4/18/16 at 10:49 pm to poochie
I don't know if I'd jump to a political angle here
Izzos is delicious and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise
As far as them vs Rouses in this business squabble, who the hell knows
Izzos is delicious and I'll fight anyone who says otherwise
As far as them vs Rouses in this business squabble, who the hell knows
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News