But they can be clean.
Posted on 12/03/2017 8:41:50 AM PST by Maceman
That’s what I was thinking - even better if she’s an Obama appointee - embrace the suck, Starbucks, maybe on appeal you’ll get a real judge.
This judge should be tied down and given a Teavana enema.
Came here to say that.
If they have a lease, the contract can only allow backing out of the lease under certain circumstances.
“I’m no lawyer, but this sounds like massive judicial overreach. What legal principle could justify this ruling?”
I’m not either, but it sounds like it might be about the lease agreement, and Starbucks terminating it early. I guess it would depend on the language in the lease.
I didn't see your post before I put my very late two cents in, but this is what I was thinking. It's really about the lease agreement. I doubt that Simons makes money or loses money based upon how a retailer renting space from them is doing. They likely make their money off the lease. To some extent, the cost of having to terminate a lease early because of losses or failure to reach business milestones should have been built into Starbucks business plan. That said, I have no idea what the actual facts are in this case.
“...Maybe BLM could...”
How about TLM: Tea Leaves Matter!
But they can be clean.
That’s gotta be it, the lease terms. I cannot believe a judge would make this up otherwise.
This is a dangerous precedent with totalitarian lefist overtones, but I’m having a tough time being upset over it happening to Starbucks, they helped make this bed. Now they can lie in it.
When I worked at a video arcade (remember those?) in a mall all the store staff had to “dress for the season”. Hallowe’en costumes, Christmas get ups, etc.
I hate Starbucks! Bad coffee, worse politics!
HST, though, Starbucks should close the stores and dare the judge to come after them!
I NEVER thought we’d actually live in an Atlas Shrugged world.
Galt’s Gulch, here I come!
Starbucks FINALLY getting a taste of the LIBERAL bastion they have been backing 100%, LOL, LOL, LOL be careful what you wish for Starbucks actions NOW have consequences!!!!! I am STILL laughing!!!!!
that wasn't listed in the posted part of the article and as a rule i don't click on the links if that's the case fine, but from the OP it looks like a simple robe edict
Since it is Starbiucks, I could care less.
That’s why I went to the lease as well.
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).
Not sure how to feel. This is like seeing your
mother-in-law drive off a cliff in your new car.
Late to this party.
But I suspect the ruling was not quite what the article said it was. If there were leases, and Starbucks was looking to violate the lease, maybe.
If I am wrong, then the facade of private ownership is gone. If I was Starbucks I would just lay everyone off and refuse to staff them.
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.