Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Challenges in Drafting a Restaurant Exclusive Use Clause
An exclusive use clause is one of the most important and heavily negotiated business issues in a shopping center lease, and therefore, it is usually negotiated by the principals or brokers in the letter of intent. In a typical shopping center lease, the tenant has committed to invest considerable sums to open its store, and expects to be able to recover such sums and earn additional profit based upon projections at that store. These projections are often built upon the anticipated demand for the tenant's product in the particular location, and the location's ability to support the demand.
Profit margins for retailers can be quite thin, particularly for restaurants and food-service tenants. Consequently, a restaurant tenant will contend that adding additional restaurants with overlapping cuisines or products could severely infringe upon its profits, thereby changing the tenant's projections and the economics of the deal. The tenant, therefore, seeks to include broad, exclusive-use protection to preclude such overlapping and to afford the tenant the most likely path to success, which success benefits both the landlord and the tenant. Such protection, the tenant will argue, is baked into the rent as consideration for the deal.
Conversely, the landlord will likely resist granting an exclusive use right or seek to narrow the scope of an exclusive use clause so as to limit impediments to leasing and provide objective guidance for future tenancies. The landlord will argue that the rent is consideration for the opportunity to be located in the shopping center, and that the landlord should not bear the burden of the tenant's fear of competition. If the tenant's product is good enough and properly priced, the other tenants in the shopping center should be irrelevant.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.