Firm closing

[Mercenary]

53 minutes ago, Barlow said:

How have the brewery been damaged and what court would award damages in their favour? Just because someone ignored a somewhat ridiculous covenant. To the detriment of no one. Not even the brewery.

Presumably the brewery would push to establish that the new value of the site (based on valuation from your successful business's revenue) was what the site would have been worth without the covenant, and they have therefore lost out by selling for cheap but gaining no benefit as the covenant has not been honoured, and that they should be entitled to the difference.

Edited November 15, 2023 by Mercenary

[John Wright]

47 minutes ago, Barlow said:

So, for the sake of argument and Manx Forum discussion purposes, say someone purchased the Traf in Douglas (yep, they did a contract with the brewery and blah blah) then sold it to someone else in a new contract, and that person opened it as a pub, and did rather spiffingly.

Brewery get shirty and take their covenant and the new owner (and/or previous owner) to court for breach of this that and the other, and claim damages. But how have they been damaged and how can that be assessed?

The new owner sells lots of beer, and for the sake of argument, has a tap of Okells that sells rather well.

How have the brewery been damaged and what court would award damages in their favour? Just because someone ignored a somewhat ridiculous covenant. To the detriment of no one. Not even the brewery.

Does the Traf have a brewery non competition covenant?

Wasn't the Traf licensed after the brewery sold it and it stopped being a pub? 

Wasn’t it the Yacht Club, with a licence, for 20 years?

However, neutralising it. There’s a premises that have such a covenant and the Brewery has the legal right to enforce.

1. they don’t have to do anything, they could consent. 

2. the owner would be unlikely to get finance to enable purchase of building and setting up of alcohol related business.

3. owner would have to advertise planning and alcohol licensing application. Brewery would just apply for an injunction. It’d be granted immediately. Owner could then try and remove.

4. if brewery didn’t object at an early stage they wouldn’t get damages, but they’d still get an injunction.

[The Voice of Reason]

21 hours ago, Kopek said:

I wonder if you could get an alcohol license for Bishops Court? Or even a Casino license???

The law change on Pubs is OK because, afterall, it's only the brewery! But Gods blessed  house???

I’ve bought a bottle of beer in Liverpools Anglican Cathedral in their cafe type establishment. Small bottles of wine were also available to purchase but at the time the only red they had was Merlot so I passed on that.
 

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

57 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’ve bought a bottle of beer in Liverpools Anglican Cathedral in their cafe at the time the only red they had was Merlot

Did they sell it as Merlot, or as the blood of Jesus? 

[Passing Time]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

But whether the banning for future sales off was actually justified, or a knee jerk reaction to losing old drinking places that no one, as far as I’m aware, wanted to use as such, post brewery, is important. 

It may be because of the covenant that nobody wanted the building

[John Wright]

3 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Did they sell it as Merlot, or as the blood of Jesus? 

Anglicans don’t believe in transubstantiation. You’re at the wrong end of Hope Street.

[The Voice of Reason]

34 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

Did they sell it as Merlot, or as the blood of Jesus? 

Merlot

[Barlow]

Coincidentally, and sort of on topic, David Cretney's newspaper article this week is on Douglas pubs that have closed.

He mentions the Forester's Arms and says:

When it closed the pub was sadly made subject to a restrictive covenant preventing it from being used by others as a licensed premise.

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/the-iconic-pubs-bars-and-hotels-of-douglas-that-we-fell-in-love-with-over-the-years-649597?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR07zgfvedVyV2lVrEt0JHFGT0wU4IzliKOB6mCkCwmJB5zyRFbSKJfGZzY#Echobox=1699902015

 

 

[CrazyDave]

6 minutes ago, Barlow said:

Coincidentally, and sort of on topic, David Cretney's newspaper article this week is on Douglas pubs that have closed.

He mentions the Forester's Arms and says:

When it closed the pub was sadly made subject to a restrictive covenant preventing it from being used by others as a licensed premise.

https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/the-iconic-pubs-bars-and-hotels-of-douglas-that-we-fell-in-love-with-over-the-years-649597?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR07zgfvedVyV2lVrEt0JHFGT0wU4IzliKOB6mCkCwmJB5zyRFbSKJfGZzY#Echobox=1699902015

 

 

The Foresters was one of those places that would never have worked as a pub that wasn’t “The” Foresters anyway.

The place was small and badly laid out but won because of the atmosphere and service plus the quality of the beer.

It would have been a very brave person who took that site on and tried to run it as a profitable pub.

[Barlow]

Yep, towards the end though it was dire. Cracks in the building you cold see light through, newspapers piled up in the corner going moldy. It was sad to see. Nothing was going to pull that back. Maybe the covenant was tongue  in cheek and the brewery was 'avin a larf.

 

[WTF]

19 minutes ago, CrazyDave said:

The Foresters was one of those places that would never have worked as a pub that wasn’t “The” Foresters anyway.

The place was small and badly laid out but won because of the atmosphere and service plus the quality of the beer.

It would have been a very brave person who took that site on and tried to run it as a profitable pub.

so why did the spewery bother with a covenant then ?

[woolley]

3 hours ago, John Wright said:

But whether the banning for future sales off was actually justified, or a knee jerk reaction to losing old drinking places that no one, as far as I’m aware, wanted to use as such, post brewery, is important. 

No, it's not. It's irrelevant. In the absence of restrictive covenants the market will decide, subject to planning permissions. It will be a far better judge of whether anyone wants to use premises for such purposes too. If, as far as you are aware, nobody did want to use them to revive the pub, what is the purpose of the covenant? Your answer is at best illogical, and at worst, disingenuous. We all know the reason for them.

 

Edited November 15, 2023 by woolley
Eliminate ambiguity.

[woolley]

1 hour ago, CrazyDave said:

The Foresters was one of those places that would never have worked as a pub that wasn’t “The” Foresters anyway.

The place was small and badly laid out but won because of the atmosphere and service plus the quality of the beer.

It would have been a very brave person who took that site on and tried to run it as a profitable pub.

 

54 minutes ago, WTF said:

so why did the spewery bother with a covenant then ?

Precisely. Are we being asked to believe that the brewery imposes covenants in an altruistic endeavour to save over-enthusiastic would-be competitors from themselves?

[John Wright]

6 hours ago, Barlow said:

Yep, towards the end though it was dire. Cracks in the building you cold see light through, newspapers piled up in the corner going moldy. It was sad to see. Nothing was going to pull that back. Maybe the covenant was tongue  in cheek and the brewery was 'avin a larf.

 

 

6 hours ago, WTF said:

so why did the spewery bother with a covenant then ?

Didn’t the brewery sell it, and it was bought by their manager and Stephen Pitts and run as a pub after? Are you sure there was a covenant?

[Happier diner]

7 hours ago, woolley said:

 

Precisely. Are we being asked to believe that the brewery imposes covenants in an altruistic endeavour to save over-enthusiastic would-be competitors from themselves?

That's right. However we shouldn't blame the brewery for trying, we should blame those that make the laws that allow them to get away with it.

It's anticompetitive clearly.