The Times They Are A Changin

Print

A major supermarket, once the largest retailer in the United States, closed in bankruptcy after 156 years in existence. People much smarter and knowledgeable that we are could better explain the cause of its demise and, in hindsight, could explain how they knew, years and years earlier, it would happen. Ruminations can only offer that the facts and circumstances changed, but the company (meaning its people in charge) did not. But, this blog isn’t about history other than to use it as a platform upon which to stand when engaging in another fool’s errand – forecasting the future.

The reason this now-gone supermarket comes to mind is “Uber.” We’ll get to that, but for now, please suffer along with us. [Read more…]

Print

Groceries And Other Definitions Revisited

Print

Groceries, sandwiches, ice cream, supermarkets, restaurants, department stores, variety stores – oh, the words we use, what do they mean? Today, we revisit one of our most-read blog postings because a federal appeals court revisited the underlying case (again). We’re “talking” about the Winn-Dixie case. Our “take” on that underlying case can be read by clicking: HERE. Ruminations urges readers to refresh their memories now by re-reading our earlier blog posting

Winn-Dixie, a supermarket chain, won a court decision in Florida where the lower court ruled that “groceries” included soup, aluminum foil, and similar items. As a result, it ruled that dozens of “dollar” type stores run by three retailers were in violation of a provision in the supermarket’s lease prohibiting others from selling groceries. Basically, the federal court that first heard the lawsuit looked at an earlier state court ruling, and (kind of properly) treated it as binding on itself, the federal court. [Read more…]

Print

Waiving Non-Waiver Provisions By Waiving Such Provisions (Again)

Print

We’ve written about the legal concept of “waiver” too many times to warrant furnishing any links to earlier blog postings. To sum it up succinctly, we’ll start with an example of a pretty familiar provision found in most agreements such as leases and mortgages (to keep us within the real property family). It reads as follows:

All waivers must be in writing and signed by the waiving party. A party’s failure to enforce any provisions of this [lease] will not be a waiver and will not estop that party from enforcing that provision or any other provision of this [lease] in the future.

If an English-speaking visitor arrived from outer space and, after completing its abduction of one or more of the world’s inhabitants, read this, it would think there could be no waiver if it were not given in writing. It would be wrong. Likewise, native-born earthlings should always have some doubt as to whether to rely solely on the ability to read. Context (and established law) matter.

Generally speaking, at least under United States jurisprudence, the Texas Supreme Court, in a clarifying (for Texas) May 12, 2017 decision, wrote the following: [Read more…]

Print

How Can I Get Out Of My Oral Agreement?

Print

It’s not true that oral contracts aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on. In fact, for all but some small classes of agreements, oral ones are no different than ones printed on the finest of rag papers. Certainly, they are more difficult to prove their very existence, let alone their detailed provisions. That’s a good reason they should be memorialized in a written version. We’ve written, “memorialized” because, in many cases that’s the real function the writing performs. The parties will have already agreed to the terms of their intended transaction. At that stage, they have a contract – a binding agreement. Writing it down doesn’t make it any more “official,” just a lot easier to follow and a lot easier to explain the “deal” to others, attorneys included.

So as not to mislead some readers, we aren’t dismissing the “Statute of Frauds,” something most (perhaps all) states adopted based on a 1677 English law with the self-explanatory name: “An Act for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries.” While various states have different lists of what kind of agreements need to be in writing lest one party or the other be able to disavow their agreement just because it was oral (and for no other disabling reason), traditionally most agreements involving conveyances of real property fall or fell (depending on where the property is located) under these statutes. [Read more…]

Print

Who Fixes What At The Shopping Center? How Do You Know?

Print

A shopping center has a finite number of elements requiring maintenance, repair or replacement. Basically, in mathematical terms, it is a closed set. That means all possible points are within its boundaries. So, if you allocate responsibilities for certain parts of a shopping center to one party and then say that the other party has responsibility for everything else, you’ve covered every possibility. Given that the leased space is a sub-part of the entire shopping center, it is easier to list a tenant’s responsibilities than to list its landlord’s. That’s made even easier if you can say that the tenant is responsible for everything inside the leased space except for a short list of discrete items. Then, you can add a short list of items outside the leased space and the result will almost always be complete as to the tenant’s role. Everything else would be cast upon the landlord. [Read more…]

Print

Can A Tenant Just Pay-Up And Close Its Store In Violation Of A Continuous Operating Covenant?

Print

Continuous operation lease provisions are contentious. The ability of a landlord to impose such an obligation within a particular lease is determined by the relative bargaining power of the parties. All bargaining power, like all politics, is local. If a tenant doesn’t really “need” to be at a particular property and the landlord really “needs” that (or any) tenant, then it’s unlikely that any resulting lease will include one. At least, in a rational world, that’s the way it would be.

Today, Ruminations will describe two unusual court decisions with the caveat that the fat lady hasn’t yet sung. Each are at the “preliminary injunction” stage, actually at the stage where two courts, in geographically distant jurisdictions, have ordered two different tenants, with different landlords, to keep their stores open. That’s where the similarity ends, as today’s blog posting will tell.

[As to the two cases, each being in the preliminary injunction stage, no final decision has been reached. All the separate courts have ruled is that what the tenants were “doing yesterday,” i.e., operating a store, they need to do “today,” i.e., keep operating that store (at least until a final decision is reached). That means not all the facts and legal arguments are yet on the table. For that reason, Ruminations won’t be analyzing the living daylights out of either case. We’ll be waiting for a final “call” as to one of those cases (the Indiana one) before going down that road.] [Read more…]

Print

Stop Them Now – They Are Killing Me!

Print
  • Until about a month ago (or, perhaps until this past September), had you asked us if a court would order a tenant to keep its store open and operating, we would have said, “Probably, not,” with an emphasis on the “Not.” We think a large majority of our colleagues would have agreed. That’s not to say that there couldn’t have been very special circumstances not included within our “Not,” but we would have thought those circumstances would need to have been unique in character. Today, after an Indiana court has (for now) barred a chain store retailer from closing 77 stores located in the aggrieved developer’s malls and a Washington state court has (for now) barred a (chain) supermarket from closing a single store, we’re far less sure. We aren’t going to dissect those two court orders today. That’s for next week, another holiday weekend. Today, we’ll just glaze eyes over with some legal background. [Read more…]
Print

Brokerage Statutes – Shield Or Sword?

Print

For some reason, it seems that the business of real estate brokerage is subject to a little more scrutiny than experienced by other businesses. For example, there is a common law principle known as the Statute of Frauds. A book could be written about this aspect of the common law and its subsequent incorporation in most state statutes (written law). We won’t write one today.

Most jurisdictions have some form of a Statute of Frauds, and it appears that all or almost all “derive from the Statute for the Prevention of Frauds and Perjuries passed by [the English] Parliament in 1677.” Despite such a lofty name, some have described these laws as “Statutes to Perpetrate Fraud.”

We aren’t going to assume that all readers already know what this kind of “Statute” covers, so here goes. When someone speaks of the Statute of Frauds, she or he is referring to a law that requires enforceable agreements to be in writings signed by the parties against whom someone wants the agreement enforced. The Statute never applied to all agreements and good quality Swiss cheese doesn’t have as many holes as does the Statute of Frauds. [Read more…]

Print