Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co.
|Walgreen Co. v. Sara Creek Property Co.|
Facts: Walgreen was a tenant in the shopping center owned by Sara Creek. The thirty-year contract had an exclusivity clause, which stipulated that no other pharmacy would be in the shopping center while Walgreen's was there. When ten years remained on the lease, Sara Creek was going through difficult times, and needed a new anchor tenant. Sara Creek signed Phar-mor, a "deep-discount" pharmacy.
Procedural History: Walgreen sought a permanent injunction to prevent Phar-mor from moving in. Trial court granted injunction.
Issue: Is an injunction or payment of damages the proper remedy?
Arguments: Injunction is: (1) simpler to implement, the court doesn't have to figure out the costs to each party, and (2) better fits the actual harm because the market determines value, which is better than the court determining value. Damage payment is better because: (1) it avoids supervision on the court's part to implement. (2) avoids a monopoly.
Holding: Injunction should be ordered in this case.
Reasons: Damage measure is too speculative to calculate with any certainty.