Monday, March 16, 2009

Apple not coming to Block 37: lawsuit

If you're not familiar with what Block 37 is well here goes.

Since about the late 80s this blog largely remained unbuilt until perhaps 4 or 5 years ago. During the winters it contained an ice-rink and during the summer an arts apprenticeship program.

Once upon a time it was home to some very significant architecture. In the late 80s those buildings came down with hopes that something new will come along unfortunately it took close to 20 years before development actually came. I'm sure many of us are wondering if it would've been more worth it to save those buildings that were already there.

Then I see this story about an Apple store scuttered. I thought that lot is still bring in some drama, even though the project is nearing its completion. Even better WBBM-TV has moved into their new digs as well on Black 37.
Apple Inc. has pulled the plug on plans for a store at Block 37, prompting another retailer to go to court to get out of its lease in the new mall, according to a lawsuit.

Yoga-wear retailer Lululemon Athletica Inc. alleges that Apple isn't going to open a store at Block 37 in a lawsuit filed in federal court last week that seeks to cancel Lululemon's lease, alleging the firm was misled about Apple's plans.

Lululemon claims its deal for a small, first-level store along State had a “co-tenancy” requirement that it would be located next to Apple in the project that’s being developed by Chicago-based Joseph Freed & Associates LLC.

The lawsuit, filed March 12, claims that an executive with Vancouver, Canada-based Lululemon was told by a “representative” of the developer in January that Apple wouldn’t open a store at Block 37 and had never signed a lease.

“Defendant (a Freed venture called 108 N. State Retail LLC) represented to Lululemon that Apple would be opening for business at the shopping center, that Apple would be located immediately next to Lululemon, and that Apple had executed a lease,” the lawsuit says. “When defendant made these representations, defendant knew they were false and made them with the intent to deceive and defraud and induce Lululemon to execute the lease.”

The retailer seeks to have its lease terminated, and alleges one count of “fraudulent inducement” and claims that Freed violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.
Interesting! I hope this is worth a lawsuit!

No comments:

Post a Comment

Comments are now moderated because one random commenter chose to get comment happy. What doesn't get published is up to my discretion. Of course moderating policy is subject to change. Thanks!