“What legal principle could justify this ruling?”
Sounds like Starbucks was trying to break its lease. So the ruling doesn’t sound all that unreasonable.
“Simon argues that if Starbucks is allowed to “prematurely” break its lease, it could be forced to fill the vacancies with “less creditworthy tenant(s)” or less desirable tenants “who will only agree to less desirable lease terms, and/or a shorter-term lease,” according to the court filings.”
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.
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.