Friday , June 18 2021

Dunnes Stores wants the court to identify “food items” in Mr Price’s dispute



Dunnes Stores has asked the High Court to decide whether to determine the product in a row between the supermarket chain and the retailer Mr. Price.

unnes wants the court to impose restrictions on what Mr. Price can sell in Carlow, which the supermarket says is a lease requirement on a discount store.

Dannes says groceries are more than just food, and include low costs for short-lived household items. Mr. Price accepts groceries, which is against Dannes’ view that they apply to other commodities.

The case concerns the opening last October of the Mr. Price store in Barrow Valley Shopping Park in Carlow, where Dannes is the tenant’s anchor in his 65,000-square-foot space.

It states that under all agreements, before it becomes the main tenant, it requires an exclusivity clause according to which renting to other divisions in the same center will not be in competition with the supermarket.

Originating after the opening of Mr Price, Dannes and the park’s landlords, Camgill Property, are suing Dafora Unlimited and Corajio Unlimited as “Mr Price Branded Bargains.”

Opening the case yesterday, Martin Hayden, SC, told Dannes that there is no doubt in the industry about the importance of food.

When in 2007/8 Dannes entered into an agreement with Redhills developer Stephen Murphy to become the tenant’s anchor, it contained a normal restrictive agreement, which Dannes insists on.

Mr Price, fully aware of the deal, continued to “pass a bus and four through it” by opening a Carlow outlet, he said.

Dannes’ position is that groceries are much more than food, and apply to short-lived, inexpensive goods that people buy every week in the context of their household needs.

Mr Hayden said the defendants had acquired the Barrow Valley unit to prevent the creation of a Mr. Price competitor.

According to him, there were talks about the possibility of the defendants selling the Dannes unit even before Mr. Price opened it.

Defendants tried to deconstruct the text of the pact and ignore the agreement, he said.

The application for a ban on their prevention was not upheld, and as a result, the question of what food meant was now before the court.

A number of witnesses on behalf of Dannes, including lawyers who acted in the process of acquiring the property, said that the exclusion of exclusivity was normal for all major residences, and there was a clear understanding of what it meant.

Irwin Drucker, a former partner at Druker Fanning and Partners who has been with Dunnes for 40 years, said the exclusive deal was presented to developer Mr. Murphy on a take-it-or-leave-it basis before the retailer agreed to participate. in development. According to him, Mr. Murphy gladly accepted this restriction.

The case is pending before Mr. Mark Sanfi.


Source link