Paper Example on Amish Farmer's Market

Issues in the Case Study in Brief

Joppatowne is the owner of Joppatowne Plaza shopping center located in Maryland. In the shopping center, there were different tenants including Miller and Redner. Miller operates two markets in the building namely flea market and Amish Farmer's market. On the contrary, Redner has 40 grocery stores in the same plaza. In each grocery store, Redner sells items that can either be found groceries or supermarkets at slightly lower prices. A conflict arose when Miller realized that the Amish Farmer's market is violating restrictive covenant in Redner's lease. A suit is taken against Joppatowne by Redner for allowing JTF to lease a section of the shopping center to run a business that competes with Redner's grocery stores. Redner realized that his rights of restrictive covenant for the lease have been violated by Joppatowne.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Rule of lease Restrictive Covenant

A restrictive covenant is an anti-competition rule that gives tenants exclusive rights to prevent the landlord of a commercial building from leasing the same building to another business that competes with the original tenant (Thomas, 1889). The rule of lease restrictive covenant inhibits the landlords from leasing, renting or permitting someone who deals in the same goods and services to occupy any part of the commercial building or another building owned by the same landlord within the same geographical area (Pollard, 2015). It is also necessary for landlords also to only enter into a lease agreement with other tenants that do not do businesses that competes with the businesses of existing tenants. The remedies for the violation of restrictive covenant include payment of damages, specific performance, and an injunction.

Case Analysis

Since Amish Farmer's market has different stalls within the Joppatowne shopping center owned by Joppatowne, they are not grouped as either big box combo or supermarket that can compete with Rudner's grocery stores. Despite the fact that Amish Farmer's market looks like the grocery store and all its stalls can be viewed as departments of its store, it would be easy to view consider that there is a violation of restrictive covenant (Hogg, 2011). It is not right to take that direction because restrictive covenant defines grocery store in relation to the retail operator and this can only be used when referring to an individual owner of each stall operated by Miller. Because the Amish Farmer's market is not a limited company but a sole trader who has no power to sue and be sued, its stalls are run and managed by different people using separate individual licenses. Furthermore, every business unit has its own cash register. This does not qualify Amish Farmer's Market as a large business organization that can compete with Redner's grocery stores.

Conclusion of the Case

On that basis, Amish Farmer's Market is not violating the restrictive covenant against Redner. Suppose Amish Farmer's Market had been registered under one proprietor, it would have been considered to be in violation of restrictive covenant or when it could have been a legal entity. Because it is neither of the above, it does not fall under the category of big box or supermarket that can compete with Redner's grocery stores. Therefore Redner wrongly accused Amish Farmer's Market of the violation of restrictive covenant thus should pay damages for the wrong accusation. The case can easily be dismissed by the court because Redner cannot provide sufficient evidence to support the case based on the definition of restrictive covenant as defined in Act 13.01(a) (i).

Key Factors the Court Uses in Evaluating Each of the Stall Stores

There are four factors that the court used to evaluate each stall for Amish Farmer's market. These factors included geographical region, nature of the product of each stall store, competition and the size of the business. All these factors are very important when evaluating the case of the restrictive covenant. For each stall, the court looked at the region where the stall store is located. If the stall is located within the Joppatowne plaza or located in another premise owed by the same landlord it can help the court to determine the case of the restrictive covenant. In relation to the case study, all the stall stores in Amish Farmer's market are located in 12000 square feet of Joppatowne shopping center and this gives the court the opportunity to believe that there is the possibility of violation of restrictive covenant (Dabbah, 2003). The nature of product or service that each stall stores are using is also important in the determination of the case regarding restrictive covenant. The product must be similar or the same as the product the tenant use. The product must be able to make the new tenant compete with the existing tenant. This is reflected in the All Fresh stall store which is located outside the Amish Farmer's market. The court determines that it sells seafood and butcher purveyors. This business also sells fresh fruits and vegetables thus it is found to violate the restrictive covenant against Redner's lease. Furthermore, the size of the business is also a question to review about restrictive covenant. A legal entity, registered under one name can be considered to violate restrictive covenant and the business must be in the category of a supermarket or big box combo (Posner, 2001). Small retail businesses such as sole proprietors registered under different persons do not qualify to use restrictive covenant because they deal with an individual product that cannot satisfy the needs of different customers.

Lesson Landlord and Tenants Learn From the Dispute

From the dispute, landlords should honor the terms and condition of the restrictive covenant so that they create unnecessary conflicts that they can avoid. They need to understand that after entering into a restrictive covenant, they must ensure that they enquire from the new tenant the kind of business or product they want to sell so that they violate the rules of the restrictive covenant. The tenant should also learn to promote fair competition to allow the customers buy the product from the business of their choice.

Discussion Question

Sony provides a warranty of 1 year for all its Sony TV sets. The warranty period they give is sufficient in ensuring that the buyer observes the functionality of their products. It also increases the safety of the buyer because he or she has the opportunity to return the product when it has some faults which make the product un-merchantable. The manufacturer instructions for Sony TV set are also sufficient because the manufacturer provides user manual in different languages that allow users to understand how to use the item.

References

Dabbah, Maher M. 2003. The Internationalisation of Antitrust Policy. New York: Cambridge Univ.Press.Evans, David S., ed. 2002. Microsoft, Antitrust, and the New Economy: Selected Essays.Boston: Kluwer Academic.

Posner, Richard A. 2001. Antitrust Law. 2d ed. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.

Thomas Beven, "Principles of the Law of Negligence", London: Stevens & Haynes (1889).

Hogg M. (2011). Promises and Contract Law: Comparative Perspectives, p. 48. Cambridge University Press.

Pollard, Jonathan. "Recent Florida Non-Compete Cases: A Decision from the 3rd DCA on Independent Clauses".Jonathan Pollard LLC. Jonathan Pollard LLC. Retrieved26 April 2015.