Page 1 of 1

Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountains?

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:30 pm
by RiverguyVT
(yeah, I'm patting myself on the back with that clever thread title)

Get it?

Seriously.. seems like an out of whack decision to me-

http://fortune.com/2017/12/04/simon-mal ... n-lawsuit/

Starbucks will now lurch sharply to the right, eschewing Yani CDs for fishing lures and ammo.

Re: Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountai

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:34 pm
by 133743Hokie
Shut down the store operation, still pay the lease. Nothing the courts can do.

Re: Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountai

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:47 pm
by cwtcr hokie
133743Hokie wrote:Shut down the store operation, still pay the lease. Nothing the courts can do.
depends on the language in the lease, it is not a free standing store so the mall operator may have put some language in there about operating unless bankrupt or something crazy

Re: Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountai

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:53 pm
by ip_law-hokie
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:Shut down the store operation, still pay the lease. Nothing the courts can do.
depends on the language in the lease, it is not a free standing store so the mall operator may have put some language in there about operating unless bankrupt or something crazy
Even if there is, courts typically have a hard time making a party do something (besides paying money damages) and are usually reluctant to enforce them.

I’m surprised that Starbucks would sign a lease that affirmatively required them to take any action except pay their rent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountai

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:00 pm
by cwtcr hokie
ip_law-hokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:Shut down the store operation, still pay the lease. Nothing the courts can do.
depends on the language in the lease, it is not a free standing store so the mall operator may have put some language in there about operating unless bankrupt or something crazy
Even if there is, courts typically have a hard time making a party do something (besides paying money damages) and are usually reluctant to enforce them.

I’m surprised that Starbucks would sign a lease that affirmatively required them to take any action except pay their rent.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree, it is a strange case

Re: Would this push Starbucks to throw tea into mall fountai

Posted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 4:22 pm
by HokieFanDC
cwtcr hokie wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:Shut down the store operation, still pay the lease. Nothing the courts can do.
depends on the language in the lease, it is not a free standing store so the mall operator may have put some language in there about operating unless bankrupt or something crazy
Usually that kind of language would be for an anchor store, not a tea shop. The idea that Teavana is driving foot traffic is ridiculous. Having them close down isn't going to harm the malls from a foot traffic perspective.
You could argue that a Starbuck's coffee shop would be important, but not Teavana.