There is another way to do this.

Rather than stipulate in your lease that you are the only one in the food court that is allowed to sell a certain kind of food, a restaurant owner could try selling the very best of that kind of food.

Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

SpinStopper: Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

Huge Chinese penii? Surely you jest.

If they have a contract with the mall granting them exclusive rights to 'sell rice' (O.o) then alright.

Not that it will matter anyway, I'm guessing in about a year we're going to start hearing about mall closings across America.

Doooom: SpinStopper: Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

Huge Chinese penii? Surely you jest.

Oh hell no. Just ask them ;)

You go home now. You been here fo' owah.

Reactron: You go home now. You been here fo' owah.

YOU GO NOW!

Hugo Mao?

This is a common thing in food courts. The Dunkin' Donuts at Presidents Place in Quincy Center isn't allowed to sell those little shiatty pizzas because of the pizza shop across the food court.

As if anybody would rather pay $3 for one of those things when they can have a delicious slice of pizza from Stash's ovens for $2

Deport their azz back to China. Now.

SpinStopper: Doooom: SpinStopper: Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

Huge Chinese penii? Surely you jest.

Oh hell no. Just ask them ;)



My penis so small.... you have big American penis!

Chu sued. Sood won

Heh.

Bloody stupid argument.
And besides, rotis or chappattis are better with curry, goddammit!

How does the suit claim Gourmet India violated a contract to which they were not a party? If Cathay has an exclusive contract to sell rice then only the mall is violating the contract by allowing a 3rd party to sell rice. I can not see how Gourmet India can be liable at all, based on the info here.
Besides, is this even the food court? Eateries that operate within the designated square downstairs qualify as food court, anything operating outside the said designated square is considered an autonomous unit for mid-mall snacking.

SpinStopper: There is another way to do this.

Rather than stipulate in your lease that you are the only one in the food court that is allowed to sell a certain kind of food, a restaurant owner could try selling the very best of that kind of food.

Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

Agree with you. But it's less the Indian place and more of the Chinese place whining that they don't want ANY competition. Not from the Indian place, the Japanese place and not the Cajun place. I was going to say, "Sorry, this is capitalism for you." But then modern capitalism is exactly like this. You either try to kill the competition through suing or underhandedness or you merge with them. For god's sakes, you never compete against them on a fair playing field.

Honestly, Chu, which I have to admit is a fine name for an eatery owner, went after a Cajun place because they sold boneless spare ribs. Cajun food is nothing like Chinese. If someone wants Cajun spare ribs and there isn't any at the Cajun place, they aren't going to go to the Chinese place because they have their own version.

They still have the exclusive on chicken feet, so what's the big deal?

/foong jao ho sekaaaaaaaaaaaa.

There was an act passed by congress a long time ago that essentially stated that if A works with B, A cannot pay B to not work with C. Essentially making exclusivity contracts illegal. I'm trying to remember the name.

Does this law just have no teeth? Every time someone does this it hurts the consumer. A similar situation: At my college, PepsiCo directly paid the administration a lump sum yearly to not allow any of the food services on campus (many of whom were private entities distinct from the school) to sell any Coca-Cola products.

It boggles my mind that this is apparently legal to do.

PC LOAD LETTER: Reactron: You go home now. You been here fo' owah.

YOU GO NOW!

You scare my wife!

Ah Providence Place. Maybe the the Chinese place should just have one of the Asian gangs that roam the mall have a small talk with the Indian owner.

Rice isn't much of a dish whereas pizza is a fine collection of ingredients cooked and served a specific way.

Rice sounds like an ingredient.

I'm negotiation my next lease to be the sole seller of salt. That will shut everybody down. Bwah hah ahh ha.

I remember first hearing about this years ago. They haven't finished yet? Our court systems can't take care of a food court rice fight?

WTF? The owner of the Chinese restaurant should be suing the mall. The restauranteur is paying an extra $11,000 a month (total $35,000) to have the exclusive right to sell rice. The mall's arguably in breach of contract by allowing the Indian place to operate.

Guess that means the cat curry is off the menu too.

SevenYearHawk: Maybe this guy can come in to mediate ...

Well rice first originated in Africa even though people typically think of it as Asian. So maybe Uncle Ben would be a good mediator.

But this was already settled by Russell Peters

Link

Even with Chinaman on their side, Chu will lose.

And also this

Link (new window)

Lampmonster: PC LOAD LETTER: Reactron: You go home now. You been here fo' owah.

YOU GO NOW!

You scare my wife!

Why you bring fooking seal?

Do they really think people who want Indian are gonna buy their rice at the Chinese place?

The food court is also home to Taco Bell, which serves side dishes of Mexican-style white rice. Yet Chu, who also wants to recover legal fees that he says exceed $250,000, never took aim at that chain. The difference, he says, comes in Gourmet India's proximity to Cathay Cathay and its menu of Asian food served with white rice.

That's a pretty fancy way of saying you're too much of a pussy to take on a corporation. C'mon, quit kicking the poor Indian struggling to live the American dream and go after the CEOs that are already there. I dare you.

must be cutting into their stray animal supply.

Rice: whether white, brown, saffron, basmati, or wild grain

IS A farkING SIDE DISH.

Chu has no legal grounds. He specifically wanted to be the only seller of white rice. Basmati rice is a specific kind of rice, different taste, texture, shape and color.

What Chu wants is to be the only asian food offering it sounds like. India is still considered asian.

It's not in the food court it's an autonomous eatery for mid-mall snacking

Gourmet food in a Food Court is a contradiction in terms, there is no such thing.......

Hello, my name is Taco Bell and these are my army of attorneys. Go away.

The exclusive in Chu's lease is not for "rice" it is only for "white rice". The question in contract interpretation is whether the objectively reasonable definition of "white rice" includes "basmati rice". I don't think it does, and apparently the trial court agreed. If Chu wanted all rice he should have said all rice, not just white rice.

Also Sood's lease probably contains a provision prohibiting him from violating other tenants' exclusives, hence why Chu is suing Sood.

comparing sticky rice to basmati rice is an insult to both sticky rice and basmati rice

/fire and p*ssy
/farking homos

The contract is exactly, and precisely for white rice, so Chu has no case.

HOWEVER, he should be able to sue the mall, or lower his lease, considering the fact that they pretty much allowed someone else sell what is essentially modified white rice.

SpinStopper: There is another way to do this.

Rather than stipulate in your lease that you are the only one in the food court that is allowed to sell a certain kind of food, a restaurant owner could try selling the very best of that kind of food.

Nah. Too easy. No waggling of huge Chinese and Indian penii involved ;)

Eh. We're just watching the Asian versions of McDonalds and Burger King go at it. Instead of all beef/grilled/double patties, it's rice. In the Mall.

It's rice, not some Culinary Institute concoction filled mysterious ingredients cooked in some propriety device that imparts a previously unknown texture and taste. It's rice.

Fallguyx: He specifically wanted to be the only seller of white rice. Basmati rice is a specific kind of rice, different taste, texture, shape and color.

That's not quite true. Basmati can be either white or brown -- depending on how it's milled. This was apparently white rice dyed yellow, but presumably basmati.

"Best rice in town"

"Best rice in the world"

"Best rice in the universe"

And the winner is:

"Best rice in THIS food court"

Epistax: There was an act passed by congress a long time ago that essentially stated that if A works with B, A cannot pay B to not work with C. Essentially making exclusivity contracts illegal. I'm trying to remember the name.

I call bullshiat. Pics or it never happened.

"It's fried rice, you PLICK!"

The real question, however, is whether the Chinese restaurant is still allowed to put pee-pee in your Coke.

There's some bad lawyerin' going on here.

SkeptiSys: How does the suit claim Gourmet India violated a contract to which they were not a party?

Exactly. Chu's problem is with the mall, not his competition. If I was paying $15,000 / month extra for the exclusive and a competitor opened up, I'd bee on the phone to the guy I was paying the $15K to asking WTF were they thinking? There has to be more here than is covered in the FA.

Barney:what are we going to eat?
Lily: How about mexican?
Barney: No, I don't really like mexican. It's just rice, ground beef, fried bread, and vegies.
Ted: Ooo, how about Indian?
Barney: I just said I don't like Mexican!
Robyn: What about some Chinese food?
Barney: ARE YOU NOT LISTIENING TO ME?

/paraphrasing.
//Also, is Chu perhaps "Wasist"?

That's ok. When this is all over, the only resturant left will be Taco Bell.

/ Going to open a plumbing fixture store in the mall.
// My lease is going to say I am the only one who can sell sea shells.

I have never heard of a mall charging any money per month for the exclusive priveledge of selling rice in the food court. Silly.

DrRatchet: Exactly. Chu's problem is with the mall, not his competition.

Chu is suing as a third-party beneficiary. Third-party beneficiaries are "persons who are recognized at having enforceable rights created in them by a contract to which they are not parties and for which they give no consideration."

At least, that's my guess. I haven't actually seen his complaint.