BayingHoundAleworks Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I was flipping through the Gazette yesterday and came across this headline "The General Store closes its doors" http://www.gazette.net/stories/03302011/takonew213740_32539.php Regardless of what some people think of Clark, I myself have no opinion, it is a real shame that she was forced to close down. The article, I felt, made the landlord look like a real prick, he probably is. So, I'd like to wish Gillian Clark and Robin Smith good luck in their next venture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthitch Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 I The article, I felt, made the landlord look like a real prick, he probably is. Strange, I did not get that impression at all, but maybe that is because I do not look at landlords as if they are kulaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayingHoundAleworks Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 On second thought, I would probably have paid money to see the argument. But the landlord had agreed to a weekly payment plan, he turns around and sues them when collections came a call'n for back taxes. Its for lack of a better term, indian giving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthitch Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 On second thought, I would probably have paid money to see the argument. But the landlord had agreed to a weekly payment plan, he turns around and sues them when collections came a call'n for back taxes. Its for lack of a better term, indian giving Only one side says that there was such an agreement, and no terms were discussed, so we are not sure what really transpired. If the landlord could not make payments for taxes or debt service because the tenants were not living up to the terms of the lease he has every right to take them to court. There really is not enough information in the article to determine if one party acted in good faith, bad faith, or a mixture of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayingHoundAleworks Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 Only one side says that there was such an agreement, and no terms were discussed, so we are not sure what really transpired. If the landlord could not make payments for taxes or debt service because the tenants were not living up to the terms of the lease he has every right to take them to court. There really is not enough information in the article to determine if one party acted in good faith, bad faith, or a mixture of the two. I stand corrected. I'm just used to slimy landlords, mine isn't, but I think most are. I guess I can relate to the landlord a bit, I know when one of my distributors doesn't pay me right away, and the brewing industry is notorious for this apparently, it sets me back quite a lot. I'll shut up now. It was funny that the Gazette referred to the General Store as the General Store Post Office Tavern, I thought that's what pissed Clark off in the beginning when the Post called it G SPOT. To me it was always the G SPOT, never ate there. I was in there perhaps once, and that was to drop off beer samples, I never heard back from them. So I revise my original post, its a shame a restaurant has to close, and leave it at that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xcanuck Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 On second thought, I would probably have paid money to see the argument. But the landlord had agreed to a weekly payment plan, he turns around and sues them when collections came a call'n for back taxes. Its for lack of a better term, indian giving The article states that the landlord was owed $160,125.64 and the court found in favour of the landlord on that account. I have no idea what weekly rent on that property is...but wouldn't you think that with $160K of back rent owed, they were more than just a few weeks late? Doesn't sound like "indian giving" to me. Sounds more like cash flow management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deangold Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 The 160+K figure also included late fees & attorney's fees according to the Post. Without the court records,and even then they might not be in the publically available documentation, there is no way to know how the figure was arrived at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BayingHoundAleworks Posted March 31, 2011 Author Share Posted March 31, 2011 The article states that the landlord was owed $160,125.64 and the court found in favour of the landlord on that account. I have no idea what weekly rent on that property is...but wouldn't you think that with $160K of back rent owed, they were more than just a few weeks late? Doesn't sound like "indian giving" to me. Sounds more like cash flow management. I am aware of my earlier statement. I don't know why I was leaning towards Clark. Ah well, I had a few beers when I wrote that. Deffinately a cash flow issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now