Yep just some dumbass judge trying to be cute. The burrito shop easily violates the spirit of what these agreements are for. They are as common as dirt and are meant to protect businesses from having competition from being moved in right next door. It clearly reduces the value of the lease.
"Yep just some dumbass judge trying to be cute. The burrito shop easily violates the spirit of what these agreements are for. They are as common as dirt and are meant to protect businesses from having competition from being moved in right next door. It clearly reduces the value of the lease."
Try this. I have been down this road, as a business owner with exclusive clause, and as a real estate broker.
The clause is intended to protect the one business, assuming a direct competitor in the center would reduce the first's business volume.
The opposing view is this: A center that becomes seen, in this case, as an eating destination, strengthens the business prospects for eating establishments.
In this case, I expect the landlord will prevail, with the judge allowing the lease to the burrito shop to stand.
Had the lessee wanted protection against a wider range of competitors than sandwich shops, he could have asked for such language in the lease. You have to define the spirit with words.
Tacos occasionally use two tortillas, yet they remain tacos and do not become sandwiches. (Reference El Pollo Loco, Tacos al carbon. Two corn tortillas, roasted chicken, onions, cilantro, pico de gallo, wrapped in foil).
In California, sandwiches are sandwiches and tacos are tacos. The line between a burrito and a soft taco may be a finer line. We may get a lot of things wrong, but we know our food.
With that line of thinking a slice of pizza could be a sandwich... if they did not want any other food to be sold that is what should have been in the contract specifically, not just saying another sandwich shop.
Just my worthless 2 cents tho'.