Actually if you sign a commercial lease the entity commits to staying open during the term of lease. This is a judge sticking to the terms of the contract.
The only escape from not being open would be inability to absorb the hit, which starbucks can..
Exactly. Don’t sign on the line if you don’t want to do the time.
SPG would still have to try and cover, damages being the difference between the Teavana lease rate and what they got from covering.
Wasn’t clear to me from the article that SBux was breaking a bunch of leases, but if they want to shutter the Teavana stores and buy out their leases, the company should be allowed to do that.
That actually makes the most sense... otherwise I don’t know what possible legal reason a judge would have to force a store to stay open.
Yeah, like I signed a rental lease but wanted to move. I still had to make the payments, but I did not have to live there until the lease was up. Same idea here, the lease payments need to be made and shame on Starbucks for not providing escape clauses — or do they have them? I want to read the lease.
Yeah, like I signed a rental lease but wanted to move. I still had to make the payments, but I did not have to live there until the lease was up. Same idea here, the lease payments need to be made and shame on Starbucks for not providing escape clauses — or do they have them? I want to read the lease.
They usually have the option to go ahead and close and payoff the rest of the lease.
“Actually if you sign a commercial lease the entity commits to staying open during the term of lease. This is a judge sticking to the terms of the contract.”
I hadn’t thought of that.
If true, I can feel good about Starbucks being damaged.
Came here to say that.
If they have a lease, the contract can only allow backing out of the lease under certain circumstances.
That’s gotta be it, the lease terms. I cannot believe a judge would make this up otherwise.
Not all leases.
Regardless, if a failing business makes a business decision that they are losing bucks for staying open, they can just pay the outstanding rent balance and be done with it (like walking away from a apartment lease).
And there it is.
I have seen this a few times. It does mean that the Simon group just made a very profitable chain very angry, but the lease terms do say to stay open for the term of the lease.
the commitment is just to pay rent, not to stay open. if they keep paying the rent to their end (or closing clause) they are fine.
This is a judge who has never had to work a day in his/her/it life.