@@gmc9753 Raising Cains would not be a party in the contract between the landlord and McDonalds. If I am correct they could only sue the landlord for damages to be made whole.
@@danielplevier3390 I think they could sue the landlord forcing them to cancel the 2nd lease which would then cause the 2nd restaurant to sue the landlord.
Yes. And then when the court orders the contract with Raising Canes invalid they'll then be unable to recoup costs, lost profits, etc. Bc they are now aware of the issue and any additional investment is at their own risk
@@danielplevier3390 If there's nothing in the Raising Canes' contract to stop them from selling chicken fingers, then they can sell them. Where does it say they can't?
This reminds me of an insurance agent selling me a policy. I was flying in the Air National Guard, which I had mentioned, and he conveniently failed to mention that the policy included a "War Clause" and an "Aviation Crewmember Clause" which made the policy essentially worthless for me. He was at my house and the pen was literally an inch from the paper when I remembered to ask him about these clauses. He reluctantly admitted that it contained both. I just said "Oh", got up and brought his coat and the trainee's that was with him and handed them their coats. The trainee looked genuinely confused, but the agent swept his papers into his briefcase and they were out the door in less than 10 seconds. He never actively lied to me, but he certainly lied by omission. The mall owners did the same thing, and I hope it costs them a bundle.
@J0HN_3_16 You're probably right, but he was solidly in the gray area. I was about to sign, then I remembered to ask him about the war clause and the aviation clause. He awkwardly said that it had both. I said "oh" and put the pen down. I left the room and walked back in with their coats (he had a trainee with him) He swept his papers into his briefcase and was out of my house in about 30 seconds. Never called back. I won't name the company, but Snoopy would have been so embarrassed.
Hmm doesn't that aviation crewmember clause only applied to non military personnel or off active duty and required to obtain permission from the Department of Defense to be an authorized solicitor if talk about life insurance.
The university I attended has something they call "Senior Project" which is an individual effort by each senior. AND it was supposed to involve relationships with entities outside the university. One student got approval from his Senior Project Advisor to do a mock effort to open a LEVI's franchise store in the town. The idea was to have a business model, map out the facility and parking, financial projections, find out from LEVI's what was involved to get a franchise, and so forth. The first thing the student did was contact LEVI's and they said that since the town already had one franchise, and due to the small size of the town, they wouldn't permit another one. So, he really couldn't go ahead with the project and went to advisor with this info saying he figured he needed to come up with another project. The advisor said, "Nope. Just write up what you have, and you will get an A. You asked exactly the right question first." That professor related that story to students until he retired. It can be VERY important to identify if there is a poison pill of some sort, and if so, identify it early.
A lot of companies that sell franchises don’t have any restrictions on the number of store in an area, I’m looking at you Subway. It’s actually good that Levi’s has this. I didn’t think there would be restaurants that would get exclusive rights to sell something as broad as “chicken products” in a certain area. That’s ridiculous especially since McDonald’s is not a chicken focused restaurant.
@@barnabusdoyle4930 Starbucks is the usual target of jokes relating to that. There were even some lines in a movie where a couple was asked how they met and the guy said, "I was sitting in a Starbucks and saw her through the window in the Starbucks across the street."
The founder, Todd Graves, actually wrote the business plan while an undergrad at LSU for a class in early 90s. He received a “C” in the paper because the professor said no business can be successful selling only chicken when all the other restaurants were expanding their menus. Todd definitely proved him wrong!
I'm reminded of a restaurant locally that got kicked out of their location because the landlord refused to negotiate a new lease. The owners had gone to no small expense converting it from an office space to a restaurant but the landlord wouldn't even discus a new lease. The weirdest part is that to this day the building is still empty, probably 5 years later.
An interesting question, if the contract between Raising Cain and the landlord did not include the exclusivity clause between the landlord and McDonalds, then wouldn't the problem actually be between the landlord and McDonalds? Raising Cain and McDonalds don't have a contract.
McDonalds would be the preferential lease holder so ultimately Raising Canes would still be the loser if McD sues to enforce their terms. The remedy for McDonald’s would be discontinuing the other lease to Raising Canes so it’s in their interest to strike first
Verbal handshake agreements are not necessarily what is in black and white so if the restriction existed but was overlooked before signing it bad on new tenant. (lawyer perhaps)
The problem is that Raising Cain was told by the landlord that they can't sell chicken there. They could fight to sell there but I think they made the right decision to abandon ship and not have to deal with that headache.
@@Fraet They were TOLD, but apparently it's not in the contract. If I was Raising Cain's , I would just continue on with building, and selling. Then McDonald's would of had to sue the landlord.
We had one not far from where I live open up. The Texas toast was barely warm and soft, the fries weren't cooked enough, and the chicken nothing special .
To be honest had worked there long time ago the only real thing they have is the chicken and the eggs hahaha. The chicken legend are actually chicken breast go wonder haha
How much you bet the "office person" that knew all about these contract quirks was at some point "laid off", because they were the highest paid worker. Corps are always shooting themselves in the foot to save a buck, by getting rid of those long term employees with "institutional knowledge".
Probably so. Disasters happen when a company lays off the only guy who knows stuff. Engineer I worked with was fired because he "didn't have the right attitude." Two months later the company was hit with $30,000 fine because they weren't shipping out toxic waste as required by regs. The engineer had been the one responsible for compliance logistics. Oopsie.
Was the prohibition against selling chicken in the terms of the lease? If not, the landlord has now got _two_ problems, since the landlord has breached both its exclusive with McD and its lease with Raising Cain (or however it's spelt).
Silent Misrepresentation or Concealment are both illegal and negate all of the above... does not look good for the landlord, as the landlord was under the obligation to tell them BEFORE signing. BTW "Cane's" Raising Cane was the founder's dog's name.
@@seanwatts8342 The point was that Raising Cane's has zero obligation to McD directly. There is no contract between those two parties. If there is a breach of an exclusivity agreement, it's on the landlord.
I suspect that this issue was discovered by a McDonalds manger or higher and seeing the chicken restaurant under construction wanted answers to what the Hell was going on.
this happens a lot with old gas station properties. the property gets sold, and the EPA shows up at the new owner's door and says "so what are you going to do about the condemned gasoline tanks under your property?" to which the new owner says something to the effect of "the tanks are still there?" other side of the coin I learned about at a golf course on the grounds of an old copper smelter. the course designer saw the mountains of black slag left behind, and said, "that would look great in the sand traps." so they sent a sample to the EPA and said, "it is going to be possible in any way to make this stuff safe for human contact?" and after an exhaustive testing process, the EPA sent back a formal letter saying. "it's already safe"
Well, everything in the slag pile has been burnt off already. The question becomes (to my knowledge): How much contact will the golfers have with it? Does inhalation cause issues? How about skin contact? Last, but not least, how dirty will it make your clothes? Oh, what about eye contact? 😅
I've been watching an abandoned gas station near me being worked on. Not only were the gas tanks old, seems an unlicensed butcher shop had existed in the back of the building. Huge expense to get this business going again but great spot. I saw the application for alcohol sales, owner listed as Patel, of course.
There was a mom and pop chicken shop in my city. Their whole business plan was folded when they discovered that the lease they signed said only the Dunkin’ Donuts down the block could sell breakfast in buildings owned by that company on that block. Tneh closed and moved less than a year after opening
What would have happened if they opened up and started selling chicken-fingers anyway? They didn't sign any such contract to NOT sell such a thing. The agreement is between the landlord and the McDs. Raising Cain's seems, in this case, not a party to the covenant.
If that's the case, McD can sue and effectively nullify the lease between Raising Cain and the landlord. Then Raising Cain is back where they started suing for damages.
@@taoliu3949 McD would have to sue the landlord, now they can probably get an injunction against RCs but they are not guarnateed to get that. The fight is between the landlord and McD's.
@@taoliu3949 But if McD's sues to nullify the lease, then Raising Cain's wouldn't have to sue for that part of the problem and would be free from the rental obligation, plus they would have a ca se they could point to to show that the landlord was in the wrong. So it seems that they might be in a better position going forward with their lawsuit at that time. of course, I don't know if that's how it works or not. This is just a layman's first thoughts on the matter.
@@adamsmall5598 They'd have to sue regardless for compensation to recoup their investment and lost revenue. And that's assuming the lease is nullified.
Cain's has the best chicken fingers I've ever had. I'm pretty sure all they have is fingers and sides. No one that I know of has ever concluded that what yuck Donald's sales is actually chicken.
That moment when Steve starts describing a situation about a business you love and the location is just down the street from you. LOL. I was wondering why they hadn't started the building process yet
Steve, Question, You said the previous tenant was TGIF they sell chicken products so how did they operate? Unless that is the reason they were leaving that McDonalds invoked their exclusivity clause. Either way the Landlord and their staff are the shady ones here and good luck to the chicken finger company I hope they get serious compensation.
Depending on when TGIF first was there, it may not have been an issue. If they were there first, I could see the McD's contract saying that TGIF was grandfathered in, but that no other restaurant that serves chicken could be there-especially since TGIF and McD don't really serve the same customer base.
McD's may have only recently purchased the exclusivity right which would not apply to the running rental agreement for TGIF until it wanted to renew the lease.
That would be horrible. Contracts between businesses are reasonably going to be complex. Even the simplest contract at our office goes more than 3 pages, and it is very straightforward
Here, in Southern New Mexico, we had an opposite case like this. There was a bookstore in the local mall for many years who had an exclusive contract which stated no other bookstore would be opened in the mall. Somehow, the managers of the mall signed a contract with another bookstore which ended up right across from the existing bookstore. After a couple of years, the reduced revenue caused the initial bookstore to close. We never heard the details of how the managers sidestepped the exclusivity condition, but somehow they did.
Could be down to the language of the deal. There was a similar scenario here, even dealing with books! The first store had a clause in the lease saying they would not put in a competing business as defined by specific terms. The second store moved in a few years later but was deemed not a conflict because while the original store dealt exclusively in used books and tobacco (not as odd a combination as you might think) the new store dealt exclusively in new books... And sold tobacco. When they tried to enforce the clause it was determined that new books do not compete with old books and because the new store only sold pre-packaged tobacco where as the old one would curate blends they were not in competition.
@@twatmunro The store was part of a large national chain. Suing was not economically worthwhile. In a rural city, large chains often leave, even if their store is profitable, because they can make more money in a larger city.
Your tangent about neglecting to inform tennats of unsafe conditons reminded me of a case where a landlord forged tennats signatures on a form known as a lead disclousre notice after a three year old girl got an acute lead poisioning from eating paint chips that had lead in ittotal restusion/fines amounted to 750k
This sounds like a case where the landlord simply forgot about that clause in McDonald’s contract. That said, they’re screwed. Maybe they should have a master document kept up to date that lists things like this so it’s easy for them to keep track of instead of trying to remember what’s in every contract of everyone of their clients…. The landlord needs to simply cave and pay the money. Otherwise it’s just going to cost them more in the end.
The landlord, Crossings Of Hobart" didn't "forget" They had tried earlier this year to get this McDonald's to allow a Chipotle to open, and Mickey D's said "no".
I'm half through this and haven't heard what the actual contract between Cain's and the mall. Seems like if they signed a paper saying no chicken there won't be any chicken, but if it's between the landlord and McDonald's I can't see why it should be Caine's problem. It's not like a private contract becomes a municipal law.
@@chcarroll5164 well, I’m assuming Raisin’ Canes wasn’t stupid enough to sing a contract that specifically said they couldn’t sell basically the only product they sell.
Ran into a similar situation when another tenant informed landlord that incoming business was in violation only after the "coming soon" signs went up after much work was done, as landlord had missed it on their end.
I live in the area where this is going on. There was no McDonalds at the Crossings in 1994. The McD's was east of there and across U.S. 30. That is not to say that McDonalds couldn't have had an option to lease there or otherwise have secured the "exclusive chicken rights" rights there, but they did not build the McDonalds in the Crossings at Hobart until many years later. Also of interest is that there are at least 4 or 5 restaurants in the Crossings that serve some sort of chicken dish.
There was an entire contract clause in the filing That is a clause that indicates that every part of the agreement between the two parties can be found in the contract. - Case over - write the check.
My understanding is the deal was made with McDonald's 25 years ago when they had a location in that shopping center. That location no longer exists as they reference one down the road. What lawyer(if one was involved) allowed the shopping center to sign a contract with no end date and that continues to be in effect after the renter is no longer there?
Wow, that is pretty bad and also any company that needs a clause like that for business really says a lot about them as a company. If you’re scared of competition make better food.
@@YukiA816 It was, and still may be, common in mall food courts that you would enter into such agreements. A company would pay a premium for a space under the belief that increased foot traffic would offset it. They wouldn't want to set up shop just to have their biggest competitors move in next door. These agreements were not perpetual though and my understanding of contracts is they may be unenforceable if it does not denote a time period and the two parties have stopped doing business.
This doesn't make sense. If McD's has moved offsite and is not renting the property anymore the lease has expired and is null and void. If the lease is 25 years old it's probably been renewed a few times. Is the clause still in the current lease? Of course, "down the road" could simply mean at the other end of the mall. Edit: I just looked it up on Google Earth. You can see where the demolished pad is, between BJ's and Chuck E Cheese. The McD is about 1/3 of a mile away but in the same mall.
@@richdiddens4059 yes, it does look like it's all part of the same strip. I was going off the reported distance and this quote from another article "Raising Cane's could not have anticipated the exclusive use provision, which was executed more than 25 years ago between two entities no longer operating at the Shopping Center, would bar its ability to sell chicken fingers at the shopping center" I'm still interested in the "two entities no longer operating at the Shopping Center" part. We know on one end the center is owned by a new entity. I wonder if the McDonald's has changed hands and if new leases have been drawn up in that time. Surely, they aren't paying the same rent that they did 25 years ago. Still comes down to a bad contract. The other story said they couldn't even have a Chipotle on the property because it would violate the agreement. (Edit for spelling)
If Raising Canes liked they property they should have kept building and opened up. There was nothing legal stopping them in their contracts. That was a matter between the landlord and McDonald's.
it's private property. the owner can make whatever contract with a tenant they want - right up until they make conflicting contracts with two different tenants and get dragged to court.
@@paulrasmussen8953 nope, there's nothing in the sherman or clayton act that says a landlord may not sign a contract to give a tenant an exclusive lease. again, if Autozone tells a strip mall, they will only rent a storefront if the landlord doesn't rent another storefront to o'reilly's. that is not an antitrust violation, because O'reilly's can rent a storefront in the strip mall across the street. however, if Autozone calls O'reilly's and tells them, "I'll put my store in this town and not in that town, if you put your store in that town and not in this town." THAT is an antitrust violation.
In case people are wondering, Caine was the founder's dog. There's a giant photo of the dog when you walk in. I have lived in San Antonio a large part of my life, and only in the past few years have I even heard of it. The meals are typically chicken fingers with fries, toast (tastes kinda sweet) and a drink. The chicken fingers taste better than a lot of places. Definitely recommend.
For anyone curious about the food itself - It is a chicken finger/tender chain that is growing in the US. I had it years ago in Ohio and it is also in Nebraska where I currently live. Raising Cane's has had fantastic chicken every time I have been there. Their "Signature Cane Sauce" is very good and reminds me of KFC's Finger Licking Good sauce they used to have, but far better. If you want to take their chicken to the NEXT LEVEL, put "Lowry's Seasoned Salt" on them. Their bread is also fantastic, although the crinkle cut fries are disappointing, like a soggy version of White Castle fries. At Canes, you can substitute bread/fries for more bread or fries depending on your tastes, so I recommend simply avoiding the fries entirely and getting some extra bread. Raising Cane's, if you see this, I think this glowing review deserves a free caniac combo! lmao
The Cane's sauce (and im absolutely shocked more people don't know this) is pretty close to a 50/50 mix of ranch and bbq sauce (with some other spices mixed in), very easy to replicate yourself. You're welcome.
@@ebaystars It’s a common mistake to think that Americans eat nothing but this kind of food. It’s not true, we have lots of healthy places to eat and lots of people eat healthy. I am positive your country has lots of unhealthy places to eat as well.
Raisin canes sells ONLY chicken fingers and a limited selection of sides. They have a chicken sandwich that is litterally 3 chicken fingers in a burger bun. So telling them they can't sell chicken is like telling a lemonade stand they can't sell lemonade.
@@markcaffarel1104 It does work really well. Both raising canes and in-n-out burger near where I live typically have drive throughs that go around the building and fill up the entire parking lot.
Steve. True story. Back in the late 1970s, early 80s, a business noticed a gasoline smell in their basement. They were next door to a very busy service station. The service station had their tanks checked and there was no signs of leakage. Using the technology of the day, an ethanol sniffer was used and the scent tracked back to a service station about 2 city blocks away that belonged to a very large un-named conglomeration. In the 2 or 3 years previous, this conglomeration had replaced their then, leaking tanks with new ones and thought that would be the end of it. Unfortunately for the small service station, it wasn't. Bottom line...the conglomeration had more lawyers than than the small successful service station and the small service station ended up going under, because of the clean up costs they ended up getting stuck with. Conglomeration is still around and to some, still as crooked as ever, but, that's life, right?
Even without Google maps and other location technology, it should have been fairly easy to find out what the name of the conglomerate was, but I guess, there might have been an _intimidation_ factor to it. These days the shady conglomerate would not stand a chance of staying hidden from even a mere blogger with a camera and TH-cam account and also the Streisand effect.
Never seen conglomeration used this way. A bunch of different businesses merging or being aquired is the process of conglomeration. The result is a conglomerate.
Reminds me of when Walmart wanted to build a store at a local shopping center. Giant Eagle objected because they had exclusive grocer rights. So Walmart bought the land behind the shopping center. GE still tried to block it because the road to the new store was going to go through shopping center land. They lost and ended closing their store not long after the Walmart opened. GE still has other stores nearby. Edit: actually that reminds me I saw a Walmart/Giant Eagle combo in Bethel Park, PA.
TGI Friday's also has chicken fingers and would never allow a single restaurant to change the menu to remove them, so something weird is going on here.
It sounds like the McDonald's is not even in the plaza where raising Cane's was going to go. It's fascinating that you can get a contract for exclusivity for some place that you're not even located.
Actually quite a bit closer to you as this happened in Hobart Indiana, in the Northwest Indiana, near Chicago. Not sure where Texas came into the story.
Always appreciate Mr. Lehto's thorough and complete explanation of the situation with his own humor and flavor. Lovely videos to listen to during downtime at work.
A similar event happened at a local mall when K-mart was supposed to relocate there with an attached Auto repair shop but found the garage rights were granted to Pep Boys which was never built after Kmart cancelled the deal.
I think it was mentioned that the previous business was a TGIFs. They sell chicken fingers and other chicken products. Did they sign a lease that was signed prior to McDonald's exclusivity clause or have an exemption from the McDonald's exclusivity clause? If either of those were true, I could see where Raising Cane would make the assumption that chicken products could be sold via the leased property.
They have very very good chicken fingers with a interesting dipping sauce. Cole slaw, Texas toast and crinkle fries and their sides. They are a very popular restaurant.
Do a deal where buy a combo fries/soda and you get a free order of chicken fingers. Just charge what you would have normally charged. That way they can say they are are not selling chicken fingers, but giving them away as a promo.
That wouldn't work since it is literally in the name of the store. Everyone just calls it raising canes but the official name is "Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers".
I remember that lesson in my one term of Business Law. The example given was you are looking at a house, you go up to the PVC plumbing, tap it and say "Oh nice copper plumbing" and that it could be an issue.
The first Raising Cane’s chicken fingers store that opened up near me years ago had cars were lined up for miles. The chicken was amazing as were their french fries. On a scale of one to 10 they were an 11 where McDonald’s would be -11.
A credit union in NJ I worked for wanted to sell candy bars and put the proceeds to various charities in the area as a part of their social action campaign. One branch was in the mall I used to work at in a camera store. I recalled that the camera store wanted to sell newspapers but could not due to another store having an exclusivity clause. I also recalled one of our stores having to close because a big Ritz-y camera store that will remain nameless moved in and garnered an exclusivity clause despite our camera shop being there for years. I said to the social action committee and marketing they might want to look into the contract for exclusivity clauses on selling candy (especially as a Gertrude Hawke had been a tenant. There was an exclusivity clause prohibiting candy being sold by them.
I can't believe you haven't heard of raising caines. Their story is awesome. Student had an assignment to make a business and when he turned in the 'raising caines' business plan, his professor failed him and said it would never work. Pretty sure it was after he hit a billion dollars in revenue he went back to see his old professor lol.
@@ActivelyVacant Who cares how they LOOK? RC is way too breading heavy for me, there's just so much breading before you get to actual chicken I don't understand the love. I also don't use sauces.
They haulted construction on a bunch of Raising Cane’s restaurants around here too. It wasn’t because of chicken exclusivity, however. It was because their drive-thrus are SUPER packed and typically extend into streets. They made them re-do all their parking lots to allow for a longer line.
Around here, it's Chick Fil A. And their drive ins cause major traffic problems. And quite frankly, I don't see the attraction. Chicken on a biscuit...so what ? A can of biscuits and some chicken nuggets and folks go nuts. No better than getting all moist about Taco Bell.
@@lakesnake2005 I think they're there for the fascio-christian practices and mentality, not the chicken. But I do have to say the phrase "No better than getting all moist about Taco Bell" has to be one of the best phrases of all time. And WTF is with a restaurant taking off that only sells chicken fingers? People know they can get those at the grocery store and heat them up in your oven at home, probably for 1/3 the price or less, right? People today are morons through and through.
Yes...Raising Cane and Chick Fil A both have lines into the street as does Salad And Go. When I go to a drive through I pick the one with the shortest lines.
This came up in my feed again. I live in the area at issue. Still no Raising Cane's and the lot where they wanted to build has a new sign up offering it for lease.
Don't ever purchase the Walmart branded "Chicken Nuggets". If there's chicken in them it's hiding. All of the good battered chicken was sold out and the only thing they had was their branded chicken. They're almost bad enough to throw out the entire bag. If I were a drinking man, this would be the only time I'd eat them. Now it's just when nothing else is in the upstairs freezer do they get used.
Sad fact is, something very similar to that has happened in the past. I seem to recall a news article from years past where a child care facility was shut down after children started getting sick and it was discovered that the site was contaminated with heavy metals.
I have a Raising Cane's near where I live, and yes they literally only sell chicken fingers. It is the only thing on the menu(though there are options for the number of chicken fingers, and there is flexibility for swapping some sides items out). The chicken is actually really good too. It is common for them to have 10-20 cars in the drive through at a time, but almost no wait time because the turn around is so quick(since everyone is getting the same thing).
My niece bought a used extended limousine to start renting out, but found out all taxi licenses for her county were already assigned to a company in the next county. There were NO taxis in her county. Lost a lot when trying to resell.
From what I read, it wasn't just that other restaurants couldn't sell chicken fingers. It was any deboned chicken. So, the sort of thing that would apply to almost every restaurant you can think of. The issue got raised after Chipotle asked for a waiver and was denied. Don't know about how Chipotle found out about it - article didn't go into that.
Chipotle was owned by McDonalds in years past, and it is likely that they are aware of clauses that McDonalds utilises as being similar or even identical to their own.
Shouldn't McDonalds have to prove their chicken products are actually made of chicken meat, before they have any right to prevent others from selling actual chicken meat?
It's not mentioned in the story but I believe this is actually in Merrillville, Indiana. There are plenty of establishments that sell chicken products around the mall and in the area; like KFC, Buffalo Wild Wings, Chic-fil-A, but that's across the street from the property in question. Plus, there are other restaurants on the property that I bet have at least a couple of chicken offerings on their menu: BBQ, Steakhouse, BJs Brewhouse. I hope this is not going to end well for the landlords.
That makes more sense. I've never heard of Hobart, TX (and I live in TX). Hobart, IN has US Highway 30 rather than Interstate 30, which runs through Dallas.
as a customer, I love chicken fingers type food, so that is definitely a restaurant that I would love to be a patron at. It's a shame that this one has faced such trouble from a landlord who doesn't want to share information
It is about time that these type of contracts be brought under control. I know of public school teachers who got their school seued because the teacher brought in soft drinks not knowing of of an exclusive rights
His example later on in the video of the lady that had him review the contract---wouldn't a general next step in a process like that be to also see if they are willing to negotiate/strike out the sections that you needed to have changed?
If it a similar exclusivity deal then it could be really complicated, since it would involve the party who has the exclusivity, likely another restaurant, not the landlord, that third party has no obligation to negotiate anything.
How can anyone limit the sale of an entire meat source? So, can someone exclude people from providing water, if put in a contract? Common sense isnt so common at all any more.
I never understood how "exclusivity" can be enforced. While it is a different industry I have seen that sink a business. I would shop at a board game store in the mall almost weekly, they had an exclusive contract to sell WH40K/WHFB minis for I think 2 miles around. It only affected 1 other comic store in the area. The store basically survived on those models because when a GW opened within a mile the store was informed they were no longer "exclusive" even though they still had a contract with the company. Within 2 years they closed down.
That sucks, though the GW being there would have cut his customer base significantly anyway… If there’s an official store that close why would they go to him anymore…
In that case they probably had a contract with the manufacturer of WH40K. They always have a clause that says the contract will be terminated if sales volume declines or fails to increase X percent per year.
That happened actually to our Krispy Kreme. Placed in the parking lot of a shopping mall that had numerous leases and clauses. War was on. Krispy Kreme moved out of town. A financial services business took over the building. The only thing left in the malls parking lot now are 3 other big name restaurants. The mall closed down and has been vacant 5+ years.
We have several Raising Cane’s here in the Kansas City area and honestly, and trust me, I'm pretty critical about fast food, they are pretty good. I haven't ate there since before the pandemic but from memory the few times I had them, I was impressed. They are not small chicken fingers, they actually have some good size to them. Give them a try if you can. There's a reason why they are popular enough that they can afford to expand.
A new one opened up in my town (Palm Springs) last year, and for the first couple of months you couldn't get in there with a bulldozer. But after two separate homicides this year (the chicken isn't THAT good), you can't get in for all the police activity.
It's good but not $18 good for a 6-piece caniac combo. When they first moved here maybe 4 years ago it was $12. I know inflation is a b-eye-itch, but after the price went past $15, I wrote them off as a viable option. Even the bog standard box combo is $12. For that I'll just make it at home with my boneless chicken that I can get for $2.30 a pound
I dealt with a lot of commercial real estate, both sales and leases. If this had been a purchase, the prohibition on the sale of certain projects would have been revealed in a title search, as deed restrictions are spelled out in the chain of title. In that case, I'm not sure how the owner of one property could put such a limitation on another property. In any case, it would be a matter of public record. Since it's a lease and the two restaurants are both portions of a larger property, I'm not sure how the chicken finger place would be able to find this out without it being specifically put into their lease. I've seen leases in shopping centers that have a section called something like "Additional Covenants and Restrictions" that spell out such limitations as a matter of course. They're in every lease in the place except one or two. Somebody in Columbus screwed up badly on this.
How are you unaware that you don't even need to own property to restrict the usage of a property? All you have to do is negotiate the deed restriction, buy development or mineral rights, or whatever.
The Raisin' Canes here block traffic with how popular it is. The entire menu is Chicken Fingers, Texas Toast, Crinkle Cut fries and Cole Slaw. Other than drinks, that's it. It's fast, because basically you only have to decide between whether you want the 3 finger box, or the 4 finger box.
I am confused. I live in the area and there is multiple locations that sell chicken products. I was excited for the store to open and was wondering why the stopped.
Something like this happened where I live. A publix has some exclusivity contract with the city for selling groceries within so many miles and blocked a walmart from being built after they had bought property cause it would have a food center. Long story short, Walmart won its lawsuit against the exclusivity and publix lost that exclusivity, but they then walmart just sold off the property and never built it. Now its a big plaza with lowes and Aldies and other stuff.
Their chicken, Cain’s dipping sauce, fries, and coleslaw are great, and the drive-thru is usually very fast. I have a teen daughter who works at one and they treat her and all the kids that work there very well. I hope that the shopping center enjoys losing court cases and $.
*the landlord is gagged and thrown into a pit on a clear moonlit night* "The Colonel sends his regards." *Dirt starts being shoveled onto the landlord*
Well this solves one of life‘s mysteries
Why did the chicken restaurant cross the road?
You just won the internet for the day! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
To be fried on the other side.
That's it, you got me. 🤣🤣
BECAUSE IT'S "FINGERS" EVOLVED INTO 'THUMBS'.
... next question
r/angryupvote
Seems to me like a classic case of chickanery.
😆😆😆😆😆
Daaaad !!!
Oooh, good one!
Well done, chicken pizza.
Been to the Yucatan?
Open the restaurant and let McD's sue the landlord for allowing a competitor. The landlord was the one that made the contract with Mc Donald's.
Couldn't McDonalds ask for an injuction preventing Raising Cains from opening or shutting it down once they do open based on the contract they signed?
@@gmc9753 Raising Cains would not be a party in the contract between the landlord and McDonalds. If I am correct they could only sue the landlord for damages to be made whole.
@@danielplevier3390 I think they could sue the landlord forcing them to cancel the 2nd lease which would then cause the 2nd restaurant to sue the landlord.
Yes. And then when the court orders the contract with Raising Canes invalid they'll then be unable to recoup costs, lost profits, etc. Bc they are now aware of the issue and any additional investment is at their own risk
@@danielplevier3390 If there's nothing in the Raising Canes' contract to stop them from selling chicken fingers, then they can sell them. Where does it say they can't?
This reminds me of an insurance agent selling me a policy. I was flying in the Air National Guard, which I had mentioned, and he conveniently failed to mention that the policy included a "War Clause" and an "Aviation Crewmember Clause" which made the policy essentially worthless for me. He was at my house and the pen was literally an inch from the paper when I remembered to ask him about these clauses. He reluctantly admitted that it contained both. I just said "Oh", got up and brought his coat and the trainee's that was with him and handed them their coats. The trainee looked genuinely confused, but the agent swept his papers into his briefcase and they were out the door in less than 10 seconds. He never actively lied to me, but he certainly lied by omission. The mall owners did the same thing, and I hope it costs them a bundle.
You should have filed a complaint with the insurance commission to prevent that agent from cheating others.
@J0HN_3_16 You're probably right, but he was solidly in the gray area. I was about to sign, then I remembered to ask him about the war clause and the aviation clause. He awkwardly said that it had both. I said "oh" and put the pen down. I left the room and walked back in with their coats (he had a trainee with him) He swept his papers into his briefcase and was out of my house in about 30 seconds. Never called back. I won't name the company, but Snoopy would have been so embarrassed.
Hmm doesn't that aviation crewmember clause only applied to non military personnel or off active duty and required to obtain permission from the Department of Defense to be an authorized solicitor if talk about life insurance.
@@robertjune1221 Must be M E T L I F E There are a bunch of jerks anyway after all who sue a community of open source game map in Minecraft.
The university I attended has something they call "Senior Project" which is an individual effort by each senior. AND it was supposed to involve relationships with entities outside the university. One student got approval from his Senior Project Advisor to do a mock effort to open a LEVI's franchise store in the town. The idea was to have a business model, map out the facility and parking, financial projections, find out from LEVI's what was involved to get a franchise, and so forth. The first thing the student did was contact LEVI's and they said that since the town already had one franchise, and due to the small size of the town, they wouldn't permit another one. So, he really couldn't go ahead with the project and went to advisor with this info saying he figured he needed to come up with another project. The advisor said, "Nope. Just write up what you have, and you will get an A. You asked exactly the right question first." That professor related that story to students until he retired. It can be VERY important to identify if there is a poison pill of some sort, and if so, identify it early.
A lot of companies that sell franchises don’t have any restrictions on the number of store in an area, I’m looking at you Subway. It’s actually good that Levi’s has this.
I didn’t think there would be restaurants that would get exclusive rights to sell something as broad as “chicken products” in a certain area. That’s ridiculous especially since McDonald’s is not a chicken focused restaurant.
@@barnabusdoyle4930 Starbucks is the usual target of jokes relating to that. There were even some lines in a movie where a couple was asked how they met and the guy said, "I was sitting in a Starbucks and saw her through the window in the Starbucks across the street."
@@trainliker100 GET THE BUSY BEE! GO GET THE BUSY BEE! GO! GO! GOOOOOOO!
Great teacher
I pondered opening a DDs in Burgaw, NC. The only franchise opportunity in all of NC was somewhere in the triangle!
The founder, Todd Graves, actually wrote the business plan while an undergrad at LSU for a class in early 90s. He received a “C” in the paper because the professor said no business can be successful selling only chicken when all the other restaurants were expanding their menus. Todd definitely proved him wrong!
Not Todd. He graduated from Georgia. His partner was the LSU student. They made a B-. The lowest grade in the class.
that professor obviously has no idea how delicious chicken is
Like Kentucky Fried Chicken?
@@knerduno5942 they sell more than chicken and diffrent types of chicken
Chicken is the cheapest meat on the market so make better profit.
I'm reminded of a restaurant locally that got kicked out of their location because the landlord refused to negotiate a new lease. The owners had gone to no small expense converting it from an office space to a restaurant but the landlord wouldn't even discus a new lease. The weirdest part is that to this day the building is still empty, probably 5 years later.
Might be that the property is being used in property trading
Sounds like 2/3 of NYC
sounds like lois rosman
@@hksp Do you mean Louis Rossmann? Yeah, he covered quite a bit of real estate ridiculousness.
@@Tathanic , or as a tax write-off.
An interesting question, if the contract between Raising Cain and the landlord did not include the exclusivity clause between the landlord and McDonalds, then wouldn't the problem actually be between the landlord and McDonalds? Raising Cain and McDonalds don't have a contract.
McDonalds would be the preferential lease holder so ultimately Raising Canes would still be the loser if McD sues to enforce their terms. The remedy for McDonald’s would be discontinuing the other lease to Raising Canes so it’s in their interest to strike first
Verbal handshake agreements are not necessarily what is in black and white so if the restriction existed but was overlooked before signing it bad on new tenant. (lawyer perhaps)
The problem is that Raising Cain was told by the landlord that they can't sell chicken there. They could fight to sell there but I think they made the right decision to abandon ship and not have to deal with that headache.
@@Fraet They were TOLD, but apparently it's not in the contract. If I was Raising Cain's , I would just continue on with building, and selling. Then McDonald's would of had to sue the landlord.
@@larrybe2900 no, wasn't in contract, they were TOLD after signing agreement. 😁
Willing to bet the landlords forgot the contract with McDonald's existed and they weren't reminded until McDonald's noticed the Cain's being built.
If you haven't eaten at Raising Canes, you're missing something really good.
We had one not far from where I live open up. The Texas toast was barely warm and soft, the fries weren't cooked enough, and the chicken nothing special .
It makes you wonder what the property managers were thinking. Here's hoping a jury awards both actual and punitive damages.
They were thinking about Money, maybe?
Or they forgot about a lease from 20 years ago that was signed by a previous owner. They are still completely at fault but these things do happen.
Wait a minute, are you implying McDonald's chicken might actually have some chicken in it?
Artificially colored and flavored
To be honest had worked there long time ago the only real thing they have is the chicken and the eggs hahaha. The chicken legend are actually chicken breast go wonder haha
@@organiccold Mind blown. 🤯
heaven gforbid anyone saying that
there is no chicken in mcdonalds chicken, i have had some and will swear there is no chicken.
Never mess with Gus Fring - Landlord has made a big mistake!
Gustavo
Locos Hermano's!
@Gretchen K. He's going to send Lyle. That man's loyalty is truly frightening
How much you bet the "office person" that knew all about these contract quirks was at some point "laid off", because they were the highest paid worker. Corps are always shooting themselves in the foot to save a buck, by getting rid of those long term employees with "institutional knowledge".
Probably so. Disasters happen when a company lays off the only guy who knows stuff. Engineer I worked with was fired because he "didn't have the right attitude." Two months later the company was hit with $30,000 fine because they weren't shipping out toxic waste as required by regs. The engineer had been the one responsible for compliance logistics. Oopsie.
Well, watched this around noon today. The wife said 'Enough with the Chicken Fingers" , sooo I had to go-to Raisin Canes to get lunch🤠
Was the prohibition against selling chicken in the terms of the lease? If not, the landlord has now got _two_ problems, since the landlord has breached both its exclusive with McD and its lease with Raising Cain (or however it's spelt).
Silent Misrepresentation or Concealment are both illegal and negate all of the above... does not look good for the landlord, as the landlord was under the obligation to tell them BEFORE signing.
BTW "Cane's" Raising Cane was the founder's dog's name.
@@seanwatts8342 The point was that Raising Cane's has zero obligation to McD directly. There is no contract between those two parties. If there is a breach of an exclusivity agreement, it's on the landlord.
@@ke9tv : Yep, though it'll unfortunately make the lease simply impossible. Only thing RC can do is get a different location and sue the landlord.
@@absalomdraconis There's a lease. On what grounds can the landlord evict Raising Cane? RC should just let McD sue the landlord.
@@ke9tv RC can't be forced out under the conditions stated in the video as they have done nothing wrong.
I suspect that this issue was discovered by a McDonalds manger or higher and seeing the chicken restaurant under construction wanted answers to what the Hell was going on.
Yes the franchise owner probably crapped himself
this happens a lot with old gas station properties. the property gets sold, and the EPA shows up at the new owner's door and says "so what are you going to do about the condemned gasoline tanks under your property?" to which the new owner says something to the effect of "the tanks are still there?"
other side of the coin I learned about at a golf course on the grounds of an old copper smelter. the course designer saw the mountains of black slag left behind, and said, "that would look great in the sand traps." so they sent a sample to the EPA and said, "it is going to be possible in any way to make this stuff safe for human contact?" and after an exhaustive testing process, the EPA sent back a formal letter saying. "it's already safe"
w
t
f?!?!
@@narmale which, the condemned gas tanks or the slag pile?
Someone thought chunks of black slag would look good in a golf course's sand traps...?
Well, everything in the slag pile has been burnt off already. The question becomes (to my knowledge): How much contact will the golfers have with it? Does inhalation cause issues? How about skin contact? Last, but not least, how dirty will it make your clothes? Oh, what about eye contact?
😅
I've been watching an abandoned gas station near me being worked on. Not only were the gas tanks old, seems an unlicensed butcher shop had existed in the back of the building. Huge expense to get this business going again but great spot. I saw the application for alcohol sales, owner listed as Patel, of course.
“The dirt even glows at night!” 😂
There was a mom and pop chicken shop in my city. Their whole business plan was folded when they discovered that the lease they signed said only the Dunkin’ Donuts down the block could sell breakfast in buildings owned by that company on that block. Tneh closed and moved less than a year after opening
What would have happened if they opened up and started selling chicken-fingers anyway?
They didn't sign any such contract to NOT sell such a thing. The agreement is between the landlord and the McDs. Raising Cain's seems, in this case, not a party to the covenant.
If that's the case, McD can sue and effectively nullify the lease between Raising Cain and the landlord. Then Raising Cain is back where they started suing for damages.
@@taoliu3949 McD would have to sue the landlord, now they can probably get an injunction against RCs but they are not guarnateed to get that. The fight is between the landlord and McD's.
@@taoliu3949 But if McD's sues to nullify the lease, then Raising Cain's wouldn't have to sue for that part of the problem and would be free from the rental obligation, plus they would have a ca se they could point to to show that the landlord was in the wrong. So it seems that they might be in a better position going forward with their lawsuit at that time. of course, I don't know if that's how it works or not. This is just a layman's first thoughts on the matter.
@@adamsmall5598 They'd have to sue regardless for compensation to recoup their investment and lost revenue. And that's assuming the lease is nullified.
@@werberderber6209 McD has their fight, but RC still has to sue the landlord for damages.
Cain's has the best chicken fingers I've ever had. I'm pretty sure all they have is fingers and sides. No one that I know of has ever concluded that what yuck Donald's sales is actually chicken.
I read an article about that meat slurry they call chicken nuggets, & I’ll never eat them again.
Actually I have never been back since I read that.
what *Yuck-Donald's *sells
Cain's really are the best! No comparison to McD's.
Nuggets are testicles, no?
I think those are called lamb fries
No Chicken Fingers???? Okay, we only sell Chicken Digits!! Thanks for coming
@@Avendesora were selling the tuna of the land.
Chicken on a stick. Problem solved?
That metaphorical example of the child care center had me rolling. It was just hilarious.
That moment when Steve starts describing a situation about a business you love and the location is just down the street from you. LOL. I was wondering why they hadn't started the building process yet
That moment when You realize that you are completely out of touch with your Community.
What's that feel like?
Steve, Question, You said the previous tenant was TGIF they sell chicken products so how did they operate? Unless that is the reason they were leaving that McDonalds invoked their exclusivity clause. Either way the Landlord and their staff are the shady ones here and good luck to the chicken finger company I hope they get serious compensation.
The clause may have stated it applied specifically to fast food. TGI Fridays doesn't really compete with McDonald's but Raising Cane's does.
Depending on when TGIF first was there, it may not have been an issue. If they were there first, I could see the McD's contract saying that TGIF was grandfathered in, but that no other restaurant that serves chicken could be there-especially since TGIF and McD don't really serve the same customer base.
McD's may have only recently purchased the exclusivity right which would not apply to the running rental agreement for TGIF until it wanted to renew the lease.
@@GeorgeMonet If that was the case then the landlords are even more at fault since it is recent knowledge which would affect any further leases.
@@GeorgeMonet the agreement dated back to 1984. So yeah, the mall is screwed.
What McDonalds sells isn’t food. 😡
I would love a law that invalidates all EULA, contracts, etc. that are more than 1 page and aren't written in clear, plain English.
Font size now 0.0001
Wouldn't that invalidate the entire US tax code? 😅
@Alex We can only hope.
That would be horrible. Contracts between businesses are reasonably going to be complex. Even the simplest contract at our office goes more than 3 pages, and it is very straightforward
@@alexm566 sounds great, no room for hundreds of exceptions for billionaires to pay nothing
Here, in Southern New Mexico, we had an opposite case like this. There was a bookstore in the local mall for many years who had an exclusive contract which stated no other bookstore would be opened in the mall. Somehow, the managers of the mall signed a contract with another bookstore which ended up right across from the existing bookstore. After a couple of years, the reduced revenue caused the initial bookstore to close. We never heard the details of how the managers sidestepped the exclusivity condition, but somehow they did.
Would there have been a time limit on the exclusivity
@@jillgott6567 : Possibly. Could also be that the exclusivity got bought out, or that the first store just never tried to enforce the contract.
Could be down to the language of the deal. There was a similar scenario here, even dealing with books!
The first store had a clause in the lease saying they would not put in a competing business as defined by specific terms. The second store moved in a few years later but was deemed not a conflict because while the original store dealt exclusively in used books and tobacco (not as odd a combination as you might think) the new store dealt exclusively in new books... And sold tobacco.
When they tried to enforce the clause it was determined that new books do not compete with old books and because the new store only sold pre-packaged tobacco where as the old one would curate blends they were not in competition.
Bankrupt bookstore probably just lacked the funds to sue.
@@twatmunro The store was part of a large national chain. Suing was not economically worthwhile.
In a rural city, large chains often leave, even if their store is profitable, because they can make more money in a larger city.
Your tangent about neglecting to inform tennats of unsafe conditons reminded me of a case where a landlord forged tennats signatures on a form known as a lead disclousre notice after a three year old girl got an acute lead poisioning from eating paint chips that had lead in ittotal restusion/fines amounted to 750k
Sounds like fowl play to me
😂
This sounds like a case where the landlord simply forgot about that clause in McDonald’s contract. That said, they’re screwed. Maybe they should have a master document kept up to date that lists things like this so it’s easy for them to keep track of instead of trying to remember what’s in every contract of everyone of their clients…. The landlord needs to simply cave and pay the money. Otherwise it’s just going to cost them more in the end.
The landlord, Crossings Of Hobart" didn't "forget" They had tried earlier this year to get this McDonald's to allow a Chipotle to open, and Mickey D's said "no".
I'm half through this and haven't heard what the actual contract between Cain's and the mall. Seems like if they signed a paper saying no chicken there won't be any chicken, but if it's between the landlord and McDonald's I can't see why it should be Caine's problem. It's not like a private contract becomes a municipal law.
@@chcarroll5164 well, I’m assuming Raisin’ Canes wasn’t stupid enough to sing a contract that specifically said they couldn’t sell basically the only product they sell.
@@maxsdad538 this landlord is going to hell and hopefully prison on the way.
I've had this same thought and wonder if it was McDonalds that brought it to their attention.
Ran into a similar situation when another tenant informed landlord that incoming business was in violation only after the "coming soon" signs went up after much work was done, as landlord had missed it on their end.
Steve, the way you said "the former site of the 'TGI Fridays'" --- hilarious
I live in the area where this is going on. There was no McDonalds at the Crossings in 1994. The McD's was east of there and across U.S. 30. That is not to say that McDonalds couldn't have had an option to lease there or otherwise have secured the "exclusive chicken rights" rights there, but they did not build the McDonalds in the Crossings at Hobart until many years later. Also of interest is that there are at least 4 or 5 restaurants in the Crossings that serve some sort of chicken dish.
There was an entire contract clause in the filing That is a clause that indicates that every part of the agreement between the two parties can be found in the contract. - Case over - write the check.
My understanding is the deal was made with McDonald's 25 years ago when they had a location in that shopping center. That location no longer exists as they reference one down the road. What lawyer(if one was involved) allowed the shopping center to sign a contract with no end date and that continues to be in effect after the renter is no longer there?
Wow, that is pretty bad and also any company that needs a clause like that for business really says a lot about them as a company. If you’re scared of competition make better food.
@@YukiA816 It was, and still may be, common in mall food courts that you would enter into such agreements. A company would pay a premium for a space under the belief that increased foot traffic would offset it. They wouldn't want to set up shop just to have their biggest competitors move in next door. These agreements were not perpetual though and my understanding of contracts is they may be unenforceable if it does not denote a time period and the two parties have stopped doing business.
This doesn't make sense. If McD's has moved offsite and is not renting the property anymore the lease has expired and is null and void. If the lease is 25 years old it's probably been renewed a few times. Is the clause still in the current lease? Of course, "down the road" could simply mean at the other end of the mall. Edit: I just looked it up on Google Earth. You can see where the demolished pad is, between BJ's and Chuck E Cheese. The McD is about 1/3 of a mile away but in the same mall.
@@richdiddens4059 yes, it does look like it's all part of the same strip. I was going off the reported distance and this quote from another article
"Raising Cane's could not have anticipated the exclusive use provision, which was executed more than 25 years ago between two entities no longer operating at the Shopping Center, would bar its ability to sell chicken fingers at the shopping center"
I'm still interested in the "two entities no longer operating at the Shopping Center" part. We know on one end the center is owned by a new entity. I wonder if the McDonald's has changed hands and if new leases have been drawn up in that time. Surely, they aren't paying the same rent that they did 25 years ago. Still comes down to a bad contract. The other story said they couldn't even have a Chipotle on the property because it would violate the agreement.
(Edit for spelling)
@@richdiddens4059 Thanks!
This is so cool! I sent him an email about this yesterday and boom video. 😃
And you made the credit list 👍
The judge should allow Raising Cane's to proceed, and allow McDonald's to sue the property owner for breech of contract in leasing to RC's.
If Raising Canes liked they property they should have kept building and opened up. There was nothing legal stopping them in their contracts. That was a matter between the landlord and McDonald's.
How the hell can that be legally binding? McDonald's has exclusive rights to sell chicken in a given jurisdiction? That is beyond ludicrous.
Monopoly violation
it's private property. the owner can make whatever contract with a tenant they want - right up until they make conflicting contracts with two different tenants and get dragged to court.
@@kenbrown2808 it still violates monopoly laws
@@paulrasmussen8953 nope, there's nothing in the sherman or clayton act that says a landlord may not sign a contract to give a tenant an exclusive lease. again, if Autozone tells a strip mall, they will only rent a storefront if the landlord doesn't rent another storefront to o'reilly's. that is not an antitrust violation, because O'reilly's can rent a storefront in the strip mall across the street. however, if Autozone calls O'reilly's and tells them, "I'll put my store in this town and not in that town, if you put your store in that town and not in this town." THAT is an antitrust violation.
@@paulrasmussen8953 nope. This is very common.
In case people are wondering, Caine was the founder's dog. There's a giant photo of the dog when you walk in. I have lived in San Antonio a large part of my life, and only in the past few years have I even heard of it. The meals are typically chicken fingers with fries, toast (tastes kinda sweet) and a drink. The chicken fingers taste better than a lot of places. Definitely recommend.
They are amazing
I thought it was a taco
For anyone curious about the food itself - It is a chicken finger/tender chain that is growing in the US. I had it years ago in Ohio and it is also in Nebraska where I currently live.
Raising Cane's has had fantastic chicken every time I have been there. Their "Signature Cane Sauce" is very good and reminds me of KFC's Finger Licking Good sauce they used to have, but far better. If you want to take their chicken to the NEXT LEVEL, put "Lowry's Seasoned Salt" on them.
Their bread is also fantastic, although the crinkle cut fries are disappointing, like a soggy version of White Castle fries. At Canes, you can substitute bread/fries for more bread or fries depending on your tastes, so I recommend simply avoiding the fries entirely and getting some extra bread.
Raising Cane's, if you see this, I think this glowing review deserves a free caniac combo! lmao
I've only been to Cain's once or twice, but a year or two later I noticed that some other chains had emulated their signature sauce.
Darn none here, but I have a few local chicken places that are independent I need to try. (Just moved back home to Albuquerque, New Mexico)
The Cane's sauce (and im absolutely shocked more people don't know this) is pretty close to a 50/50 mix of ranch and bbq sauce (with some other spices mixed in), very easy to replicate yourself. You're welcome.
sorry to say you guys eat such crap food, i live in thailand here there are so many ways to lose weight! food is but one of them
@@ebaystars It’s a common mistake to think that Americans eat nothing but this kind of food. It’s not true, we have lots of healthy places to eat and lots of people eat healthy. I am positive your country has lots of unhealthy places to eat as well.
How exclusive can the McDonald's contract be if TGIF and their Wal-Mart sell chicken fingers.
Has anyone tried suing them claiming chicken fingers aren’t actually the fingers of a chicken?
Had the same thing happen to me. I wasn’t allowed to repair phones in the shopping center because Office Depot was repairing phones in the center.
I assume you were told about this condition before signing a lease?
@@olsmokey I never signed the lease after being told that.
Raisin canes sells ONLY chicken fingers and a limited selection of sides. They have a chicken sandwich that is litterally 3 chicken fingers in a burger bun. So telling them they can't sell chicken is like telling a lemonade stand they can't sell lemonade.
Todd Graves kept the business model simple after confirming it would work by seeing how well In-N-Out burger succeeded.
@@markcaffarel1104 It does work really well. Both raising canes and in-n-out burger near where I live typically have drive throughs that go around the building and fill up the entire parking lot.
In-N-Out is overrated though. I have yet to find someone who doesn't agree that Cane's have the best fried chicken.
@@tonymouannes I would agree with that. Though I did see someone in the comments who said he thought Cane's wasn't very good.
@@Lilitha11 I'm sure there is always someone who doesn't like it, but that's pretty rare (assuming they like fried chicken).
Steve really seems to enjoy saying "chicken fingers".
Steve. True story. Back in the late 1970s, early 80s, a business noticed a gasoline smell in their basement. They were next door to a very busy service station. The service station had their tanks checked and there was no signs of leakage. Using the technology of the day, an ethanol sniffer was used and the scent tracked back to a service station about 2 city blocks away that belonged to a very large un-named conglomeration. In the 2 or 3 years previous, this conglomeration had replaced their then, leaking tanks with new ones and thought that would be the end of it. Unfortunately for the small service station, it wasn't. Bottom line...the conglomeration had more lawyers than than the small successful service station and the small service station ended up going under, because of the clean up costs they ended up getting stuck with. Conglomeration is still around and to some, still as crooked as ever, but, that's life, right?
Even without Google maps and other location technology, it should have been fairly easy to find out what the name of the conglomerate was, but I guess, there might have been an _intimidation_ factor to it. These days the shady conglomerate would not stand a chance of staying hidden from even a mere blogger with a camera and TH-cam account and also the Streisand effect.
Lol, what? How would you be smelling gas from 2 blocks away?
@@JohnRunyon He he, you got 1 like and I feel so sorry for that liker!
Never seen conglomeration used this way. A bunch of different businesses merging or being aquired is the process of conglomeration. The result is a conglomerate.
Reminds me of when Walmart wanted to build a store at a local shopping center. Giant Eagle objected because they had exclusive grocer rights. So Walmart bought the land behind the shopping center. GE still tried to block it because the road to the new store was going to go through shopping center land. They lost and ended closing their store not long after the Walmart opened. GE still has other stores nearby. Edit: actually that reminds me I saw a Walmart/Giant Eagle combo in Bethel Park, PA.
TGI Friday's also has chicken fingers and would never allow a single restaurant to change the menu to remove them, so something weird is going on here.
Likely depends on the specific language in the contract. TGIF doesn't really serve the same customer base as McDonalds so they may have been excluded.
It sounds like the McDonald's is not even in the plaza where raising Cane's was going to go. It's fascinating that you can get a contract for exclusivity for some place that you're not even located.
Actually quite a bit closer to you as this happened in Hobart Indiana, in the Northwest Indiana, near Chicago. Not sure where Texas came into the story.
@@richardjuergens2660 apparently Texas laws benefit less than honest commercial landlords so the landlord got the suit moved there...
The property was owned by the same company.
Always appreciate Mr. Lehto's thorough and complete explanation of the situation with his own humor and flavor. Lovely videos to listen to during downtime at work.
A similar event happened at a local mall when K-mart was supposed to relocate there with an attached Auto repair shop but found the garage rights were granted to Pep Boys which was never built after Kmart cancelled the deal.
I think it was mentioned that the previous business was a TGIFs. They sell chicken fingers and other chicken products. Did they sign a lease that was signed prior to McDonald's exclusivity clause or have an exemption from the McDonald's exclusivity clause? If either of those were true, I could see where Raising Cane would make the assumption that chicken products could be sold via the leased property.
I was going to say the same thing.
I wasn't even aware this restaurant chain existed. Now I want one in my town!
They have very very good chicken fingers with a interesting dipping sauce. Cole slaw, Texas toast and crinkle fries and their sides. They are a very popular restaurant.
@@raymondeddy3733 And the lemonade. Don't forget the lemonade.
@@garymartin6987 It's best to get the 25 chicken tender tray
@@garymartin6987 lol, I’ll have to try the lemonade. I never had it.
Do a deal where buy a combo fries/soda and you get a free order of chicken fingers. Just charge what you would have normally charged. That way they can say they are are not selling chicken fingers, but giving them away as a promo.
That wouldn't work since it is literally in the name of the store. Everyone just calls it raising canes but the official name is "Raising Cane's Chicken Fingers".
@@Lilitha11 It doesn't say the chicken fingers are for sale. :D
I remember that lesson in my one term of Business Law. The example given was you are looking at a house, you go up to the PVC plumbing, tap it and say "Oh nice copper plumbing" and that it could be an issue.
The real estate developer should be prosecuted for fraud.
The first Raising Cane’s chicken fingers store that opened up near me years ago had cars were lined up for miles. The chicken was amazing as were their french fries. On a scale of one to 10 they were an 11 where McDonald’s would be -11.
It's not a 11. More like a 6 out of 10. The sauce make sure 8 out of 10. Price is good too. Cheap good eat is what makes it popular.
A credit union in NJ I worked for wanted to sell candy bars and put the proceeds to various charities in the area as a part of their social action campaign. One branch was in the mall I used to work at in a camera store. I recalled that the camera store wanted to sell newspapers but could not due to another store having an exclusivity clause. I also recalled one of our stores having to close because a big Ritz-y camera store that will remain nameless moved in and garnered an exclusivity clause despite our camera shop being there for years. I said to the social action committee and marketing they might want to look into the contract for exclusivity clauses on selling candy (especially as a Gertrude Hawke had been a tenant.
There was an exclusivity clause prohibiting candy being sold by them.
I can't believe you haven't heard of raising caines. Their story is awesome.
Student had an assignment to make a business and when he turned in the 'raising caines' business plan, his professor failed him and said it would never work.
Pretty sure it was after he hit a billion dollars in revenue he went back to see his old professor lol.
More amazing is why anyone goes to RC's to get their "breading fingers."
@@VideoArchiveGuy the sauce is fire
Chic-fil-A is basically the same menu, except they make some of the saddest looking sandwiches.
@@ActivelyVacant Who cares how they LOOK?
RC is way too breading heavy for me, there's just so much breading before you get to actual chicken I don't understand the love.
I also don't use sauces.
It's a myth. It's his partner who is the LSU student, not the founder. His partner is the one with the business plan.
They haulted construction on a bunch of Raising Cane’s restaurants around here too.
It wasn’t because of chicken exclusivity, however.
It was because their drive-thrus are SUPER packed and typically extend into streets.
They made them re-do all their parking lots to allow for a longer line.
Around here, it's Chick Fil A. And their drive ins cause major traffic problems. And quite frankly, I don't see the attraction. Chicken on a biscuit...so what ? A can of biscuits and some chicken nuggets and folks go nuts. No better than getting all moist about Taco Bell.
@@lakesnake2005 : Chik-fil-A has a slightly different breading than some other chicken places.
@@lakesnake2005 I think they're there for the fascio-christian practices and mentality, not the chicken. But I do have to say the phrase "No better than getting all moist about Taco Bell" has to be one of the best phrases of all time. And WTF is with a restaurant taking off that only sells chicken fingers? People know they can get those at the grocery store and heat them up in your oven at home, probably for 1/3 the price or less, right? People today are morons through and through.
Yes...Raising Cane and Chick Fil A both have lines into the street as does Salad And Go. When I go to a drive through I pick the one with the shortest lines.
@R Hamlet Because think of the average person, and then realize that statistically, half the people are dumber than "average"
This came up in my feed again. I live in the area at issue. Still no Raising Cane's and the lot where they wanted to build has a new sign up offering it for lease.
Pausing the video at 1:43 due to chocking on the phrase "Chicken fingers have evolved to a point" -Thank you Steve
Raising cains should add a very loud stereo or very smelly cheese store. Durian fruit deep fried?
Walmart sells chicken products for cooking and ready to eat. So how is this possible?
Did they just decide not to bother the Walton’s lawyers?
Don't ever purchase the Walmart branded "Chicken Nuggets". If there's chicken in them it's hiding. All of the good battered chicken was sold out and the only thing they had was their branded chicken.
They're almost bad enough to throw out the entire bag. If I were a drinking man, this would be the only time I'd eat them. Now it's just when nothing else is in the upstairs freezer do they get used.
Gotta love ❤️ the hypothetical business. Had me rolling.
"The dirt even glows at night!" 🤣🤣🤣
What I wonder is, did the new tenant have anything in their contract saying they cannot sell chicken products? Or was that point raised later?
They where told way after the contract was signed, after the building was constructed!
@@mathieubordeleau150 that makes no sense because at that point they can sell chicken fingers and mcdonalds cant do anything about it
@@petervansan1054 McD can sue and who do you think has the better lawyers and deeper pockets?
They were told after they demolished the TGIF building and were about to start building their own building.
The toxic childcare facility example was hilarious 😂
They come home every evening with glowing dirt on them!
Sad fact is, something very similar to that has happened in the past. I seem to recall a news article from years past where a child care facility was shut down after children started getting sick and it was discovered that the site was contaminated with heavy metals.
I have a Raising Cane's near where I live, and yes they literally only sell chicken fingers. It is the only thing on the menu(though there are options for the number of chicken fingers, and there is flexibility for swapping some sides items out). The chicken is actually really good too. It is common for them to have 10-20 cars in the drive through at a time, but almost no wait time because the turn around is so quick(since everyone is getting the same thing).
I would eat it everyday if I could
My niece bought a used extended limousine to start renting out, but found out all taxi licenses for her county were already assigned to a company in the next county. There were NO taxis in her county. Lost a lot when trying to resell.
Sounds like she needed to start an UBER-like limo company.
Imagine giving Mcdonalds exclusive rights to chicken fingers, when they don't even sell real chicken.
From what I read, it wasn't just that other restaurants couldn't sell chicken fingers. It was any deboned chicken. So, the sort of thing that would apply to almost every restaurant you can think of. The issue got raised after Chipotle asked for a waiver and was denied. Don't know about how Chipotle found out about it - article didn't go into that.
Chipotle was owned by McDonalds in years past, and it is likely that they are aware of clauses that McDonalds utilises as being similar or even identical to their own.
Shouldn't McDonalds have to prove their chicken products are actually made of chicken meat, before they have any right to prevent others from selling actual chicken meat?
It's not mentioned in the story but I believe this is actually in Merrillville, Indiana. There are plenty of establishments that sell chicken products around the mall and in the area; like KFC, Buffalo Wild Wings, Chic-fil-A, but that's across the street from the property in question. Plus, there are other restaurants on the property that I bet have at least a couple of chicken offerings on their menu: BBQ, Steakhouse, BJs Brewhouse. I hope this is not going to end well for the landlords.
Hobart, Indiana... that's about 5-6 miles from Merrillville? Good catch.
That makes more sense. I've never heard of Hobart, TX (and I live in TX). Hobart, IN has US Highway 30 rather than Interstate 30, which runs through Dallas.
Not to mention, this could fall under unfair competition.
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!
In Hobart, Indiana city limits, but in the Merrillville, Indiana ZIP code. Definitely not in Texas.
as a customer, I love chicken fingers type food, so that is definitely a restaurant that I would love to be a patron at. It's a shame that this one has faced such trouble from a landlord who doesn't want to share information
From Michael " I have always said and have experienced it that "if you don't own the real property you don't own your business"
It is about time that these type of contracts be brought under control. I know of public school teachers who got their school seued because the teacher brought in soft drinks not knowing of of an exclusive rights
I call BS on that one.
Yeaah, no......
His example later on in the video of the lady that had him review the contract---wouldn't a general next step in a process like that be to also see if they are willing to negotiate/strike out the sections that you needed to have changed?
Im sure they did try, or she asked before, and he left that out
If it a similar exclusivity deal then it could be really complicated, since it would involve the party who has the exclusivity, likely another restaurant, not the landlord, that third party has no obligation to negotiate anything.
How can anyone limit the sale of an entire meat source?
So, can someone exclude people from providing water, if put in a contract?
Common sense isnt so common at all any more.
That's how capitalism works. Capitalism tends toward anti-competitive practices and monopoly if left to do whatever it wants.
I could easily see a property owned by Islamic or Jewish owners wanting to contractually ban pork. Not that it would be a good business decision......
I never understood how "exclusivity" can be enforced. While it is a different industry I have seen that sink a business.
I would shop at a board game store in the mall almost weekly, they had an exclusive contract to sell WH40K/WHFB minis for I think 2 miles around. It only affected 1 other comic store in the area. The store basically survived on those models because when a GW opened within a mile the store was informed they were no longer "exclusive" even though they still had a contract with the company. Within 2 years they closed down.
That sucks, though the GW being there would have cut his customer base significantly anyway… If there’s an official store that close why would they go to him anymore…
@RoseKindred - agreed re: I never understood how "exclusivity" can be enforced. - I asked Steve here how do you sell a right to another party?
In that case they probably had a contract with the manufacturer of WH40K.
They always have a clause that says the contract will be terminated if sales volume declines or fails to increase X percent per year.
@@mrfrenzy. - Question : what is WH40K , please.
@@mrwest5552 Warhamer 40,000, it is a hobby where you build/paint miniatures and there are rules to play games.
That happened actually to our Krispy Kreme. Placed in the parking lot of a shopping mall that had numerous leases and clauses. War was on. Krispy Kreme moved out of town. A financial services business took over the building. The only thing left in the malls parking lot now are 3 other big name restaurants. The mall closed down and has been vacant 5+ years.
Well that explains why so many businesses in that area thank you
We have several Raising Cane’s here in the Kansas City area and honestly, and trust me, I'm pretty critical about fast food, they are pretty good. I haven't ate there since before the pandemic but from memory the few times I had them, I was impressed. They are not small chicken fingers, they actually have some good size to them. Give them a try if you can. There's a reason why they are popular enough that they can afford to expand.
Chicken prices (well all prices) have caused the quality to drop a bit and the price to skyrocket. Not really worth eating there anymore for me.
A new one opened up in my town (Palm Springs) last year, and for the first couple of months you couldn't get in there with a bulldozer. But after two separate homicides this year (the chicken isn't THAT good), you can't get in for all the police activity.
It's good but not $18 good for a 6-piece caniac combo. When they first moved here maybe 4 years ago it was $12. I know inflation is a b-eye-itch, but after the price went past $15, I wrote them off as a viable option. Even the bog standard box combo is $12. For that I'll just make it at home with my boneless chicken that I can get for $2.30 a pound
Y'all don't have raisin' canes? Bruh y'all are missing out. So good. Fuck now imma have to go to canes this afternoon.
Ben is standing in front of the first mic from the left
"The dirt even glows at night". Nice one Steve! Nice one indeed!
Ben loafing against Mic #1, behind Red Viper, Steve's RHS
I'm really loafing in front of this laptop....
It looks like Bob won the morning😊😊😊
@@BenLeitch Aren't you always... 😉😁
Ditto
@@keithe2150 🙇♂
@@Bobs-Wrigles5555 My iPhone gives me daily screen time.... good thing my laptop doesn't. 😆
I dealt with a lot of commercial real estate, both sales and leases. If this had been a purchase, the prohibition on the sale of certain projects would have been revealed in a title search, as deed restrictions are spelled out in the chain of title. In that case, I'm not sure how the owner of one property could put such a limitation on another property. In any case, it would be a matter of public record. Since it's a lease and the two restaurants are both portions of a larger property, I'm not sure how the chicken finger place would be able to find this out without it being specifically put into their lease. I've seen leases in shopping centers that have a section called something like "Additional Covenants and Restrictions" that spell out such limitations as a matter of course. They're in every lease in the place except one or two. Somebody in Columbus screwed up badly on this.
How are you unaware that you don't even need to own property to restrict the usage of a property? All you have to do is negotiate the deed restriction, buy development or mineral rights, or whatever.
The Raisin' Canes here block traffic with how popular it is. The entire menu is Chicken Fingers, Texas Toast, Crinkle Cut fries and Cole Slaw. Other than drinks, that's it. It's fast, because basically you only have to decide between whether you want the 3 finger box, or the 4 finger box.
I'm glad "you didn't ask" has an actual legal title.
“If you’re going to do the wrong thing, then do it the right way!” That is truly excellent advice! 😂
I am confused. I live in the area and there is multiple locations that sell chicken products. I was excited for the store to open and was wondering why the stopped.
It is not the area; it is the shopping center itself,
Now you know! The landlord is acting like a sleazy used car salesman (think Violet Beauregard's dad in the original Willy Wonka movie)
@@nancyomalley6286 I was thinking more along the lines of the dad from Matilda.
@@americanace96 Oh yeah-and this is just after I watched a Matilda reaction. But my brain went back 25 years before Matilda!
Something like this happened where I live. A publix has some exclusivity contract with the city for selling groceries within so many miles and blocked a walmart from being built after they had bought property cause it would have a food center. Long story short, Walmart won its lawsuit against the exclusivity and publix lost that exclusivity, but they then walmart just sold off the property and never built it. Now its a big plaza with lowes and Aldies and other stuff.
What city was that in?
Exclusivity contract with the city for selling groceries sounds super anticonsumer. FTC would have something to say.
I needed a 'chicken fingers' counter for this episode 😂
I read this!! The defendants also asked McDonald's to give up the thing they had during all the construction!!! Bad bad bad
Their chicken, Cain’s dipping sauce, fries, and coleslaw are great, and the drive-thru is usually very fast. I have a teen daughter who works at one and they treat her and all the kids that work there very well. I hope that the shopping center enjoys losing court cases and $.
Yeah, my teen son works at one and thinks it a great place.
*the landlord is gagged and thrown into a pit on a clear moonlit night*
"The Colonel sends his regards."
*Dirt starts being shoveled onto the landlord*
“We sell French fries and Texas toast now. Come try our promo, free chicken fingers with every fry purchase”. . . Lawyered!