yup, i don't see how it could possibly be legal
Posted on 12/03/2017 8:41:50 AM PST by Maceman
Starbucks, who is swimming in money, decides to cut and run on a contract that has a specific performance clause just because they don't like selling tea anymore.
Simon is probably going to get a nice cash windfall.
Really would like to see a copy of that contract though and it's penalties.
“Getting rid of Federal lifetime appointments requires an amendment to the Constitution.”
There is no lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.
I agree 100%.
Insights welcome.
There is no way a judge has that authority. Only in “Atlas Shrugged.”
yup, i don't see how it could possibly be legal
they could pay the lease and still close the shops since it's prolly cheaper than wages/etc
There is no lifetime appointment to the federal judiciary.
“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour”
LOL - love that book.
In this case I really don’t think it is a directive 10-289 issue - but instead contract law that Starbucks agreed to when they signed the lease.
““The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour””
Correct. During good Behaviour. This is different than a lifetime appointment.
When judges depart from good Behavior they can be removed. And it does not require a constitutional amendment.
But this never happens because voters, and the people voters send to congress, don’t enforce the constitution created by the founders. And that is the problem.
they were signed in good faith, but all things change
i love seeing $B’s take in the arse i just don’t want to see overreach from the stench, er bench
Breaking of the lease has always been bad business. So, if that is the basis of the judge’s decision, I agree with the logic. That would be far less worrying than if a judge had decided to make business policy decisions for a private business.
The state allowing you to pretend you own your business and can take profit from it but only so long as you do so within the dictates of the state is more fascist than commie.
No they can still close the stores. They just have to buyout the lease. And that is not the stated reason the lessor is citing.
Rediculos. This judge could write a 555 page ruling and still be rediculos.
5.56mm
It's not the same as a lease on an apartment or storage unit, there are specific performance obligations.
You leave an empty store in a mall, it looks bad and costs the mall operator money.
And their leases are written to avoid this.
You want to cut and run when you have billions in the bank? Fine. Pay up.
This is not a Judge’s decision!
Lose all products. Bring in a hot plate, a box of Lipton tea bags and styrofoam vending machine cups. One employee to dispense the lukewarm water, to provide the tea bag and to collect the $9.50 per cup fee.
Communist judge?
Part of me says ...awe so sorry Simon. Starbucks breaks the lease, pays said fee(s) and leaves. The Teavana division is going out of business.
Starbucks gave Simon notice of intent, likely required by the contract.
Simon took them to court? Teavana staying isn’t going to save their mall, especially of those stores are not turning a profit.
We need to see the contract, but this ruling doesn’t seem appropriate/legal on the face of it.
Another example of very poor if not outright misleading reporting. They bury the most salient part of the story in the last paragraph.
Imagine how different the reaction of the readers would have been if the headline had been more truthful, such as “Judge disallows Starbucks breaking of lease”.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.