If judges are allowed to tell a business if it cannot close a facility, how low before judges are allowed to control private aspects of our daily lives? Businesses should be allowed to flourish/fail on their own unless a binding contract stating otherwise exists.

While potentially true I've never written or signed a contract without penalty assurance of fruition. It would be odd, and very suspect in my opinion, indeed.

Perhaps there isn't a penalty clause and they have not choice but to stay open. Without a copy of the lease we just don't know.

even with a binding legal contract for continual operation there would be a penalty clause with damages should they violate their agreement. A judge cannot FORCE them to stay open, continual suffering financial loss, maintaining employees. All a judge could do is rule that damages should be awarded.

Let’s be accurate. Starbucks agreed to leases with covenant requiring continued operation of stores. They agreed to that binding legal contract. This is NOT an anti-libertarian ruling.

Sorry to be a few days late seeing this...great point.

With a “continuous operation covenant,” a sublease would violate the terms of the lease.

We dont know the details really. The media makes it sound like 10-289, but we will see if starbucks continues to operate or just pays off the lease contract (which is what they would do if it was a contractual issue). Staying open when you are losing money every day just isnt something that a company would do, however.

We are so close to directive 10-289 in many ways already; I would not be surprised if it were here.

One Word...Sublease!..or...sell rubbers for lesbians or something...what ever this perverted culture will buy.

Looking forward to hearing the details.
I wonder if Starbucks could have come to an agreement with Simon if they communicated, or if they tried and Simon decided it was time to get a ruling on this type of clause to shore up their position for the future. Could be Simon is in confidential talks to sell the company and this issue is crucial to valuation. Wonder how the trial venue was selected. I suspect it wasn't accidental.
We live in interesting times.

Looks like a voluntary contract to me:

“Starbucks made a business decision to acquire Teavana in 2013,” the judge wrote. “Starbucks voluntarily entered into and assumed lease agreements — regardless of the financial success of Teavana — with Simon for each of the stores at issue and agreed to continuous operation covenants.”

The judge also determined that Starbucks “unilaterally” decided to announce the closing of Teavana stores in 2017 and winding down operations without communicating with Simon.
http://www.nrn.com/operations/court-b...

I agree. The covenant appears to exist as described:

“Starbucks made a business decision to acquire Teavana in 2013,” the judge wrote. “Starbucks voluntarily entered into and assumed lease agreements — regardless of the financial success of Teavana — with Simon for each of the stores at issue and agreed to continuous operation covenants.”

The judge also determined that Starbucks “unilaterally” decided to announce the closing of Teavana stores in 2017 and winding down operations without communicating with Simon.
http://www.nrn.com/operations/court-b...

Just the general idea that a court or government could say, you cannot go out of business.
Now, as for the "voluntary contract", I would be surprised if there wasn't an escape clause for these extenuating circumstances.

I am not a fan of Starbucks, their coffee, their politics nor their cultural views but if I were them, I'd figure out, real quick, a new business model that would make me a profit. But maybe, they have lost that ability due to their leftest views.

"Welch’s decision was based on her finding that Simon would suffer greater harm if the Teavana locations closed than Starbucks would if they remained open."
The profit or loss of the parties is not relevant and if the statement is true, the judge's reasoning is flawed.
If this statement is true and it is the basis for the decision, the ruling should be overturned. However, if the covenant exists as described, then the landlord should prevail under the contract assuming the judge cites the contract terms as the reason for the decision. Profit of the parties to the contract should not be relevant unless the contract covenant is stated in those terms.
Agreeing to such a covenant was unwise.

"All of the leases contain a “continuous operation covenant,” requiring Teavana to operate with a full staff and full stock of merchandise for the duration of the lease."
http://www.nrn.com/operations/court-b...

Re: "It's unusual that a judge will order a breaching party to perform as he said he would (specific performance), because it can be involuntary servitude . . . " Since when is performing an action that one agreed to perform "involuntary servitude"? That may be the prevailing legal interpretation, but it makes no sense from an Objectivist perspective. Morally, one cannot unilaterally break a contract whenever one feels like it, on the grounds that adhering to its terms would amount to "involuntary servitude".

The article indicated that the contract contained a "continuous operations covenant". Enforcement of a provision of a voluntary contract is not the same thing as telling one how to run his or her own private business.

Would Judge Narragansett have refused to enforce the terms of a voluntary contract? The article indicated that the contract contained a "continuous operations covenant".

Rand saw what coming? A judge that enforces the terms of a voluntary contract?

Directive 10-289 has nothing to do with enforcement of a contract that was freely entered into.

What you're saying is that a company cannot legally contractually agree to remain in business for a specified period of time in exchange for other considerations, and that a judge can overturn the contents of such a contract even though this contract did not violate the rights of either party. Neither argument makes sense from an Objectivist perspective.

I'd expect an early termination penalty... all part of doing business. I would NOT expect a judge to force me to lose money... then again, this IS the brave new world.

Anyway, if I HAVE to stay open, well... I'm sure we could do that. I put my solution below.

I wonder if the same judge will order Studebaker back in business, because I want to buy a Stude Pick-up, and it's my RIGHT to force someone to sell me something I want, because I'm just that entitled and special. No money? Not my problem. No factory? Not my problem.. I'm sure the judge will force -someone- to sink billions into it so I can have my pickup truck.

We will stay open... hire one person to babysit the store, remove all inventory and fixtures owned by Teavana from the facility, set up a card table at the door of the otherwise empty store, and sell iced tea. At $60 a cup.

Sorry, your honor, we're not closed... see, we even have product here to sell, a operating till, an employee, even a counter.

Too bad they can't use a coleman lantern for their light, and shut off the other lights and power in the store... tho I think the bare and abandoned looking store would look uglier, er, more stark, er, less attractive" er, well... Leave the lights on.

Tell ME how I'm going to run MY private business? Think not.

I was wondering the same. Was the judgement related to a clause in the contract. If so, none of us should object.

Got it.