If the property company is in the wrong, why are they the wrong people to sue? Or do you think that Subway is suing ATOM’s?
Allegations are just that: allegations. Don’t you think that Subway should be considered innocent until proven guilty?
Freedom, I’m starting to see your point.
(Did I just say that? Or was that just the voices inside my head?)
(Doesn’t matter; I always do what they tell me to do. ;))
Anyhow, I think we agree that it wasn’t Atom’s that was in the wrong; they weren’t part of the deal. The strip mall management likely violated its contract with Subway by letting Atom’s in; now it’s their problem to restore Atom’s to the situation they were in before signing the lease, unless they can satisfy Subway in some other manner.
I think there are some flaws in your analogy - in your example, the business was giving away business that, in effect, belonged to the computer guy. There ain’t no business out there that belongs to the Subway in a like manner; with or without the vegan restaurant, they’ve still got to convince people to come into the strip mall (from somewhere else, if it’s a small one) and buy their sandwiches.
Still, restaurants have a pretty thin profit margin, and I can see where the vegan place’s putting even a minor dent in their business could make the difference between success and failure. It may be that they just can’t afford that risk. That’s reasonable.
I disagree.
All the business of people buying food for immediate consumption within that little strip mall belongs to Subway, as is dictated by their contract with the owners of the mall.
You’re right, Ryan; I misinterpreted one of the paragraphs to mean that Atom’s was being sued by both FRP and Subway.
To the OP. I pretty much agree with the article that Subway’s isn’t directly competing with Atom’s; most of Atom’s regular clientele probably wouldn’t eat at Subway’s in the first place.
But they are competing in the sense that a person of no particular bent may decide to go to Atom’s instead of Subway. The chance of this I have no way of determining, but I feel that it is probably unlikely
Subway is being pretty petty over this; FRP is being asinine. What if a bakery opened up in that strip mall? Could Subway shut them down for selling cokkies?
Actually, no I didn’t. I opened the “Reply” box when the only post to this thread was the OP.
When I suggest that something has a bias, I’ll let ya know. Wouldn’t want to create any misunderstandings, don’tcha know.
But that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
If it’s a ‘little strip mall’, then there’s little ‘captive’ business at the mall itself. Nearly everyone who stops there to buy Subway sandwiches or vegan food - either one - came from somewhere else, and presumably stopped by either (a) because Subway or Atom’s was their destination all along, or (b) because Subway or Atom’s caught their eye as they were driving by.
If people had to drive in and park before having any clue what restaurants were in the mall, then you’d have a population who came there for the purpose of “buying food for immediate consumption within that little strip mall”, and were then faced with a choice of one restaurant or the other, as opposed to just having Subway there. But that isn’t how it works.
It’s not that I disagree with what you’re saying; I just don’t see that it means anything in terms of their business.
After reading the articles, I think the bottom line is that the property management company screwed up. They signed a lease with Subway providing for no competition. Then they signed a lease with another restaurant, hoping that the Subway franchisees wouldn’t get pissed off.
One thing that seems to be buried in the vegsource.com article is the fact that the vegan restaurant does, in fact, sell sandwiches. That’s competition. It might not compete as aggressively as another sub joint, but it still competes. And so the Subway franchisee has a legitimate complaint.
It’s unfortunate that the vegan restaurant is caught in the cross-fire, but they’re not completely without blame. They saw a clause in the lease that worried them, so they asked the other party to give them legal advice. Obviously, FRP has an incentive to assure them everything’s A-OK. If you’re going to spend $180,000 to open a restaurant, it’s foolish not to spend a couple hundred dollars and get a lawyer to review the contract.
Perhaps a larger question is being ignored: What criteria are they using to determine that the store is “competing?” It is not, as seems to be implied, because they sell food at all, but the same type of food. Not just “Soup and sandwiches” but also:
They are suing because they feel that the Vegan store is encroaching on their right to be the only seller of health food on the property. Do I need to explain why this is absurd?
I guess I’m slow on the uptake, but I do need you to explain why this is absurd. If you’re implying Subway isn’t really healthy then I guess you’re entitled to your opinion, but that argument probably won’t get you too far in court.
If you’re saying Subway should not be able to have an exclusive right to sell healthy food in the stripmall, then you’re mistaken. They have a contractual agreement which, arguably at least, gives them exclusive rights. This is not an uncommon clause to have in a contract. Nobody wants to invest a bunch of money to open a store then have a competitor open next to them. I don’t see why this is absurd. Subway isn’t saying they should be the only place in the city or state that sells that type of food. They’re saying they should be the only place in that mall.
Big franchises are on guard against freeriding competitors. I’m not necessarily saying the vegan restaurant is a freerider, I’m just explaining why Subway would want this clause. I don’t know if you have Outback Steakhouses near you, but they’re a big steakhouse chain. What normally happens is they open a franchise, then smaller steakhouses open in the vicinity, trying to get some of the Outback business. I have no firsthand knowledge, but I would assume Outback gets exclusive rights in any stripmall in which they open. This doesn’t prevent the small steakhouses from opening nearby, but it does prevent them from opening in the same mall.
Yes, please do. As far as I can tell, they are suing due to a breach of contract.
Which was legal.
No one is insisting that it is some “right” to exist in a monopolistic state. They are insisting that they signed a contract stating a no competition clause and the other half failed to hold up their end of the contract.
I don’t see much of an issue here. In fact, I’m suprised that they tolerated the food store in the first place. They must have waited to enforce the contract until there was a clear case of breech.
:rolleyes: Yeah, its hard to believe that Subway would want to do anything but crush people’s lifelong dreams. That’s why I eat there.
Sheesh. Subway is not wrong for demanding that its contract be upheld. Just having another sandwich shop in that storefront would be a clear violation of no competition, IMO. The contract did not specify, as far as I could tell, that Subway’s menu must be static.
As well, no one is “joining the bullies,” my god, is this guy from some television drama? They were in the right to demand that they contract they agreed to and were bound by would be upheld.
This is interesting. Macs aren’t competing with PCs? Linux isn’t competing with Windows?
They target different consumers, you know?
I’m sorry, Opal, but I just feel that this vegan place should go. They got the shaft from the real estate guys, to be sure. And subway shouldn’t be attacking this vegan place, either, no doubt there, even though they knew about the no competition clause in the contract and tried to sneak in anyway.
There was a redeeming part of the article where they stated this, however.
There are a couple of other things I forgot to mention. First, the Subway franchise notified FRP of its objections before Atom’s opened. Some of the articles and comments on the board make it seem unfair of the franchisees to do this after the restaurant opened. That’s not the fault of Subway. FRP was on notice of their objections.
Second, according to several vegan websites, Subway serves a sandwich that is vegan-friendly. So the competition is a little more direct than it would appear at first. The menus don’t exactly overlap like McDonalds vs. Burger King, but Atom’s could definitely cut into some sales.
Again, I think that FRP is the party that screwed up, not the Subway franchisee. But I think Atom’s and their attorney know that the David vs. Goliath angle is going to get them more publicity. The Associated Press probably wouldn’t write a story about a vegan restaurant vs. their property manager.