Indiana judge writes law ordering Starbucks to keep its stores open!!!

This ruling should be tossed. Malls are on their way out as more and more people shop online.
That just doesn't sound right. I have never been a mall person: don't like them and avoid them. But I have been to them when necessary.

I don't shop much online. I go to downtown shopping areas to shop, or local shopping areas. Just hate malls, always have. However, it seems to me people go to malls for more than just shopping. They provide a day of entertainment for some people, especially women and kids: shopping, eating, movies, hair dressers and manicurists, coffee shops, and so on.

I think the problem is probably the economy and that the people running the malls need to adapt to changing times by developing more businesses in the malls that appeal to those who are looking for spending the whole day there doing more than just shopping.

When it's hot, you can spend the day there in air conditioned comfort. When it's cold or wet, you can get away from the unpleasant weather in a controled climate.

That tea shop doesn't sound like a very good bet anyway. And, no business should be forced to keep a shop open to help the other businesses in the mall stay afloat.

I live in a small town with a population of less than 6,000 people. We’re so small we don’t even have a mall. What we do have is a vibrant downtown core of small shops but the shopping is really limited. There is one women's clothing store. Other than Giant Tiger, and a work wear store, there is nothing for men. Nothing for kids either.

I moved here from downtown Toronto where I could find anything I wanted to buy within a few blocks from home without patronizing a mall. Now I do a lot of shopping online, which I never did before I moved here.

The US downtowns have been hollowed out by big box discount retailers like Walmart who cut prices until downtown stores lost business and were forced to close. Those who choose not to buy their crappy foreign made goods, are going online. Now Walmart stores are closing due to lack of sales.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.
 
Last edited:
I'd like to see what law(s) the judge used to justify this decision. Very odd.

Maybe the leases?






They are liable for the lease payments but there are plenty of corporations that pay the lease payments on closed up shops. The employee overhead would put them out of business but they can support an empty store front lease payment.

Unless they have a clause prohibiting “going dark”. Then they must stay open.
 
The leases contain “continuous operation clauses” whereby the tenant agrees to remain open and fully operational for the entire term of the lease. Starbucks can close the stores one by one as each of the leases runs out, but some of these leases run until 2027.

This is the first time a judge has ruled in favour of a landlord on these clauses in regards to a non-anchor tenant. (Anchor tenants are large retailers like Walmart or other large grocery or department stores which draw large numbers of shoppers to malls).

I fully expect Starbucks to appeal this ruling.

Leases also have a "sales per sq ft" clause. That allows the mall to terminate the lease of under performing tenants. Starbucks can close and shutter the stores. That will drive the sale/sqft way down.

Sometimes, but not often with big national tenants.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Allowing someone to control the real estate without operating it can be horrible for the Mall.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Allowing someone to control the real estate without operating it can be horrible for the Mall.

There is a shopping mall near my in-laws home that is dismal at best. They have a major chain grocery store and a discount department store as anchor tenants at each end of the mall and a lot of empty stores in between. There are a number of national chain stores which are still open. I’m assuming it’s because of “continuous use” clauses because there isn’t enough foot traffic in the place to justify their operation.

OTOH if you’re looking for good service and available staff to tend to your needs, there’s no place better.
 
It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

Allowing someone to control the real estate without operating it can be horrible for the Mall.

There is a shopping mall near my in-laws home that is dismal at best. They have a major chain grocery store and a discount department store as anchor tenants at each end of the mall and a lot of empty stores in between. There are a number of national chain stores which are still open. I’m assuming it’s because of “continuous use” clauses because there isn’t enough foot traffic in the place to justify their operation.

OTOH if you’re looking for good service and available staff to tend to your needs, there’s no place better.

It’s sad what happened to them. In the north I think some will survive just because of the weather, but there was just way to much development in most places. They just killed each other
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is a freedom of choice. I pack my shit up and leave. I can't go to jail for breach of contract. The mall owner can only sue me for remaining rent, so I'd win anyway.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 An Indiana judge has taken an unusual step and temporarily barred Starbucks from closing 77 failing Teavana stores in Simon Property Group malls because the real estate giant was less able to handle the financial pain.

Starbucks said in July it planned to shutter its 379-store Teavana operation — but Simon rushed to court to block 77 stores in its malls from going dark — claiming such a move by a high-profile tenant could spark other stores in its malls to close.

Starbucks, after trying to turn around its stumbling tea chain, said last August it was pulling the plug on Teavana.

It wanted to close all the stores by the end of the year.

But Indianapolis-based Simon, in an environment where hundreds of stores across the country are closing, rushed to a local court to ask Judge Heather Welch to stop the store closing.

Welch, in a 55-page order, found that the very profitable Starbucks could absorb the financial hit — estimated by Starbucks to be $15 million over five months — better than Simon could. The mall operator did not provide an estimate of how much the closings of the Teavana stores would hurt them.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.

The leases contain “continuous operation clauses” whereby the tenant agrees to remain open and fully operational for the entire term of the lease. Starbucks can close the stores one by one as each of the leases runs out, but some of these leases run until 2027.

This is the first time a judge has ruled in favour of a landlord on these clauses in regards to a non-anchor tenant. (Anchor tenants are large retailers like Walmart or other large grocery or department stores which draw large numbers of shoppers to malls).

I fully expect Starbucks to appeal this ruling.

They can appeal, but if it's in the contract then all the judge is doing is saying they have to follow the contract.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

Hell, the judge should just order people to shop more at those malls. Really, this is ludicrous. I have no idea how a judge can tell a private entity that can’t close and have to stay open and loosing money. Scary! This should go to SCOTUS.

It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is a freedom of choice. I pack my shit up and leave. I can't go to jail for breach of contract. The mall owner can only sue me for remaining rent, so I'd win anyway.

They could also probably sue for any other loss of business due to other stores leaving as well. It's a stretch but it could increase Starbuck's liability.
 
It'll go to an appellant court who will overrule the current ruling and file an investigation against this judge, and then if the mall tries to appeal again, it'll be shot down by the SCOTUS if it were ever to get that high.

I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is a freedom of choice. I pack my shit up and leave. I can't go to jail for breach of contract. The mall owner can only sue me for remaining rent, so I'd win anyway.

They could also probably sue for any other loss of business due to other stores leaving as well. It's a stretch but it could increase Starbuck's liability.

I could always turn around and sue the mall owner for running a crappy establishment and making my store do so little business, I almost go bankrupt.
 
I disagree. The companies enter into these leases knowingly and with full legal representation. They willingly signed an agreement to keep these stores open throughout the duration of the lease. Barring bankruptcy, there is absolutely no reason for the courts to side with the tenant.

You can’t just change your mind when you enter into a contract. There has to be a breach of contract on the part of the landlord for the tenant to break the lease.

If the malls were doing well, the landlord would be happy to let the tenant go and replace it with a tenant paying a higher rent. But the malls aren’t doing well. Offline retail sales are down primarily because online retailers can offer cheaper prices.

Online retailers don’t need fancy fixtures and employees standing around waiting for customers to come in. I operate an online store from a room in my home. No additional overhead required. My expenses, aside from inventory, are web hosting and advertising - about $100 a month. Customers pay for shipping.

It is illegal to force someone to keep a business open against their own will. Rent is obligated to be paid unless there's a buy-out clause. The store owner should be able to pay the remaining # of month's rent due and then pack up and move out. It's not the store owner's problem the mall isn't doing well. Maybe the mall's owner shouldn't be such an idiot and put tenants in that will keep people coming, for example: mini golf courses, fitness centers, pools, larger movie theaters (like Movie tavern), top of the line restaurants, a car dealership, etc. I live in shitty Syracuse, New York and Destiny USA thrives here and it's a large, traditional mall.

Malls are doing crappy for two reasons. 1) Internet buying. 2) The owner is a retard and doesn't adjust with the times.

When you enter illegal terms into a contract, it's not a legitimate term you have to follow. In my apartment lease, there is a section that says, "any term in this contract that violates federal or state law is automatically nullified," or something like that.

You keep talking about a business lease like it’s a “freedom of choice” issue. It’s not. You made your choice when you sign an agreement to keep your business open and in continuous operation for the term of the lease.

There is no law which says that a “continuous use” provision is illegal. There are no laws which protect business owners from landlords inserting protective provisions in their leases. That’s why business owners have lawyers negotiate the terms of their leases, especially when dealing with shopping mall leases which frequently run in excess of 50 pages of legal paper printed on both sides. The Devil, as they say, is in the details.

There is a freedom of choice. I pack my shit up and leave. I can't go to jail for breach of contract. The mall owner can only sue me for remaining rent, so I'd win anyway.

They could also probably sue for any other loss of business due to other stores leaving as well. It's a stretch but it could increase Starbuck's liability.

I could always turn around and sue the mall owner for running a crappy establishment and making my store do so little business, I almost go bankrupt.

True, and as usual, in the end, the only people who make $$ are the lawyers.
 
This is insane and you have to figure the judge took a bribe like all judges do.

https://nypost.com/2017/12/01/judge-bars-starbucks-from-closing-77-failing-teavana-stores/

dec 1 2017 An Indiana judge has taken an unusual step and temporarily barred Starbucks from closing 77 failing Teavana stores in Simon Property Group malls because the real estate giant was less able to handle the financial pain.

Starbucks said in July it planned to shutter its 379-store Teavana operation — but Simon rushed to court to block 77 stores in its malls from going dark — claiming such a move by a high-profile tenant could spark other stores in its malls to close.

Starbucks, after trying to turn around its stumbling tea chain, said last August it was pulling the plug on Teavana.

It wanted to close all the stores by the end of the year.

But Indianapolis-based Simon, in an environment where hundreds of stores across the country are closing, rushed to a local court to ask Judge Heather Welch to stop the store closing.

Welch, in a 55-page order, found that the very profitable Starbucks could absorb the financial hit — estimated by Starbucks to be $15 million over five months — better than Simon could. The mall operator did not provide an estimate of how much the closings of the Teavana stores would hurt them.

The case is being closely watched by retailers and landlords alike amid a retail meltdown that has resulted in a record number of bankruptcies this year.

The retail failures have left landlords scrambling to find new tenants and retailers in the difficult position of breaking their leases.

Still, it is rare that a judge orders a retailer to keep stores open, retail experts said.
Based on the article, it sure doesn't sound like the booming economy you claim Trump has created. LOL
I would have sincerely laughed at this if i didnt know you were being serious
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top