Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A common restrictive covenant in shopping center leases is the so-called “radius restriction,” a lease provision that prohibits a tenant from opening a competing establishment within a proscribed distance from the present location. Typically, a radius restriction goes hand in hand with a percentage rent provision, which allows the landlord to participate in the tenant's gross sales after a certain threshold or “break point” is achieved.
Landlords argue that the radius restriction is necessary to prevent a shopping center tenant from operating from a nearby location to the detriment of the landlord and its center. The presumption by landlords is that a competing establishment within a certain distance from their shopping center would divert customers away from the center and result in a dilution of percentage rent. On the other hand, tenants argue that a radius restriction does not protect either the landlord's competitive position or percentage rents, but is anticompetitive and prevents them from acting aggressively in a quickly-expanding market (which, in turn, hinders their ability to compete vigorously in the marketplace).
The arguments surrounding radius restrictions are heightened in rapidly growing and increasingly competitive market areas. In light of the potential impact on both landlord and tenant, each of the terms and conditions in a radius restriction requires careful negotiation and drafting to ensure the most effective and enforceable restriction possible.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
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.