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.
“We need to see the contract, but this ruling doesn’t seem appropriate/legal on the face of it.”
I agree that it would be interesting to see the details of the lease.
If there are penalties for breaking the lease, as there usually are, then Starbucks should have been allowed to break the lease if they paid those penalties.
If the judge forced Starbucks to stay open even though they would have paid the penalties, then the judge is a moron.