LogFAQs > #969331388

adjl posted...

Because it's on such a small scale that there's only one company they had to pay to secure that monopoly and that that point in the mall's life, the extra money from McD's was worth more than what they expected to get from other chains being able to sell chicken fingers. Presumably, the mall's fortunes have turned around a bit since then and they can now attract enough other chains that the deal no longer works in their favour, but as long as it's in place they are bound by it.

Now, if it's a location that's attractive enough for other chains to move in, I'm guessing they're in a position where McDonalds probably wouldn't leave if the exclusivity deal were to be broken, since they likely have more to gain by staying. But that's something they'll have to negotiate with McDonalds, and in the mean time, other places can't serve chicken strips.

That makes sense
I wonder how common that sort of itemized exclusivity is

ZangsBeard posted...

Indiana only has to do with the location, the state government has zero to do with this...

Yeah, I made a mistake on that

It's the mall that's the "offending party"