ILNews

Sub shop’s appeal 86’d by court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Jersey Mike’s Subs located in the now-closed College Football Hall of Fame in South Bend didn’t have the right to continue operating in the Hall of Fame building, according to the Indiana Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the operating agreement.

Specialty Foods of Indiana, doing business as Jersey Mike’s Subs, entered into a use management and operations agreement with Century Center Board of Managers in 2000 for the sub shop to be the exclusive provider of food and drink in the Hall of Fame. The city of South Bend completed construction on the building in August 1995. But by 2009, the National Football Foundation decided to relocate the Hall of Fame to Atlanta due to poor financial results. The Hall of Fame in South Bend closed at the end of 2012.

Specialty Foods sued the city and Century Center in December 2012, seeking declaratory judgment that it could continue to operate in the building. The trial court denied the request based on the language of the force majeure clause of the UMO agreement.

“[W]e conclude that the terms of the force majeure provision excusing performance for ‘any other reason not within the reasonable control of Century Center’ includes the closure and relocation of the Hall of Fame,” Senior Judge Carr Darden wrote in Specialty Foods of Indiana, Inc., d/b/a Jersey Mike's Subs v. City of South Bend and Century Center Board of Managers, 71A05-1302-MI-95.

“In considering these circumstances surrounding the making of the UMO Agreement and the purpose the parties intended to accomplish by entering into the contract, it is clear that Specialty Foods’ operation in the Hall of Fame building was ancillary to and contingent upon the existence of the Hall of Fame. Thus, when the Hall of Fame ceased to exist in South Bend, so too did the need for the services provided by Specialty Foods.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT