Poll of the Day > Raising Cane's sues IN shopping center after being told it can't sell chicken

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/raising-canes-chicken-fingers-sues-indiana-shopping-center-after-being-told-it-cant-sell-chicken-fingers/

Raising Canes, a restaurant famously known for exclusively selling chicken fingers, is suing a northwest Indiana shopping center after being told eight months and over a million dollars in construction later that it would be prohibited from selling chicken fingers due to a long-standing, undisclosed deal with McDonalds.

Sounds like a straight forward lawsuit.

Man I really like Raising Cane's but the closest one is like an hour away.

papercup posted...

Man I really like Raising Cane's but the closest one is like an hour away.

We have a bunch around here. Its the first time Ive been near them. The one I tried was a brand new one that was only open for like a month at a time. It was underwhelming to me. I think about trying them again sometimes.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sounds like a straight forward lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, a little over a week after Raising Canes began construction on the site of a former TGI Fridays, the Crossings of Hobart sent a letter to McDonalds seeking a waiver of their exclusive rights in order for the shopping mall to secure a lease with Chipotle.

Lol. The shopping center owners played a game of FAAFO

Raising Canes chicken is one of the better fast food chicken options imo, but they need more variety for dipping sauces. Like their house sauce is pretty solid, but sometimes I want ranch or buffalo or bleu cheese or something else with my chicken fingers!

So, I definitely hope Raising Canes wins Also, why did they even ever sell that right to McDonalds, of all places? And is there ever any way to end that? I feel if that doesnt end, that could hurt the mall as a whole Though, McDonalds doesnt seem to care Either way, that was super shady

Raisin' Canes doesn't even sell raisins

Their chicken strips suck. And whats funny is every time someone tells me they love them, I ask "What would you do if you drove up and they had a sign that said 'Out of sauce'?" they always say "drive away" If you gotta have sauce to eat the strips, the strips are shit.

hypnox posted...

Their chicken strips suck. And whats funny is every time someone tells me they love them, I ask "What would you do if you drove up and they had a sign that said 'Out of sauce'?" they always say "drive away" If you gotta have sauce to eat the strips, the strips are shit.

I didnt even think the sauce was that good, and I love sauces.

Sounds like complete incompetence on the shopping center's part to not only assume they could get out of that deal, but to make it in the first place. Like, what, is McDonalds going to go "Oh sure, I'll drop this deal that pretty much bares our competition from existing in the same shopping center as us"? At least put a timeframe on it of like 10-20 years if you are that desperate for a McDonalds.

Dikitain posted...

Sounds like complete incompetence on the shopping center's part to not only assume they could get out of that deal, but to make it in the first place. Like, what, is McDonalds going to go "Oh sure, I'll drop this deal that pretty much bares our competition from existing in the same shopping center as us"? At least put a timeframe on it of like 10-20 years if you are that desperate for a McDonalds.

Well, the people who made the deal with McDonalds arent in the picture.

The lawsuit states that the exclusive rights were given to McDonalds in 1994 by previous property owners.

However, its pretty clear by the writing of that article the new owners were aware of the deal regardless.

LinkPizza posted...

Also, why did they even ever sell that right to McDonalds, of all places?

Presumably because the mall was struggling and a McD's would draw people to it, with an exclusivity deal giving McD's an incentive to open a franchise there because their competition would be limited.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Sounds like a straight forward lawsuit.

Indeed. The deception is obvious, the monetary damages are clear and very difficult to dispute... The mall would have to be an idiot to even let it go to court.

Dude they're so expensive now. It's like $18 for five chicken fingers, fries, Cole slaw and a toast. It's fucking chicken fingers. When my boyfriend and I went there last time it was $31 for CHICKEN FINGERS. I make him pay since he's the one who always wants to go there.

Dikitain posted...

Sounds like complete incompetence on the shopping center's part to not only assume they could get out of that deal, but to make it in the first place.

And to, you know, let a Cane's get built there if they're going to be unable to operate. Nobody halfway intelligent could have thought Cane's would pay rent for 15 years without being able to function: here's guessing they didn't remember the exclusivity deal until it was too late or incorrectly assumed they could get McDonald's to waive it.

I find Cane's...OK. They have pretty good chicken fingers, although I find them a bit on the bland side even with the sauce. I can't figure out why they always have such a long line. Honestly I preferred McDonald's old 'chicken selects', ironically: I liked their texture and taste better...although they occasionally got overcooked.

I wish they had BBQ sauce. I don't like the Cane's sauce at all and that's the only sauce they carry.

Jen0125 posted...

Dude they're so expensive now. It's like $18 for five chicken fingers, fries, Cole slaw and a toast. It's fucking chicken fingers. When my boyfriend and I went there last time it was $31 for CHICKEN FINGERS. I make him pay since he's the one who always wants to go there.

Yikes... I dont remember it being that expensive for a single person... but its been awhile.

fettster777 posted...

I wish they had BBQ sauce. I don't like the Cane's sauce at all and that's the only sauce they carry.

Pull a power move and bring your own. Ask for an empty ramekin and fill it with your own sauce.

ZangsBeard posted...

Pull a power move and bring your own. Ask for an empty ramekin and fill it with your own sauce.

A ramekin? Just bring a squeeze bottle and squirt it directly into your mouth with each bite. While making intense eye contact with somebody.

ZangsBeard posted...

Yikes... I dont remember it being that expensive for a single person... but its been awhile.

It's due to "inflation" I'm sure

Every grocery store here sells pre-cooked chicken (Fried, Rotisserie, tenders, wins, ect.)

Fuck most places have a full on wing bar.

Yeah, that's ridiculous on IN's part

How does a global chain have a regional monopoly on a specific food item?

El_Marsh posted...

Yeah, that's ridiculous on IN's part

How does a global chain have a regional monopoly on a specific food item?

Because capitalism? Legal shenanigans? A bit of column A and column B?

hypnox posted...

If you gotta have sauce to eat the strips, the strips are shit.

Or, and I realize this probably hasn't occurred to you at all, the sauce makes the strips taste that much better

El_Marsh posted...

Yeah, that's ridiculous on IN's part

How does a global chain have a regional monopoly on a specific food item?

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.

El_Marsh posted...

Yeah, that's ridiculous on IN's part

How does a global chain have a regional monopoly on a specific food item?

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

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"

And really, I don't actually fault the mall for making the decision. I'm guessing they were struggling when the deal was signed in '94, which would have meant they didn't have many stores that drew significant traffic and had difficulty courting new clients as a result of that. McDonalds is something that does draw significant traffic, though, so getting one in there helped to fix that downward spiral such that it was well worth limiting which other restaurants could set up shop (and McDonalds, in turn, could guarantee that they'd get a sizable chunk of the mall's food court business by virtue of being the only option for a popular item). It definitely seems like a mutually beneficial decision, and if the mall was struggling enough then, it may actually be the only reason the mall's still around today.

What I do fault them for, though, is letting Raising Cane's get this far without telling them they couldn't sell chicken strips. If their decision and the mall's history mean they can't allow anyone else to sell chicken strips, that's fine, but they need to be clear on that and they are 100% liable for letting Raising Cane's (or any other restaurant, really) set up shop under false pretenses.

ZangsBeard posted...

Yikes... I dont remember it being that expensive for a single person... but its been awhile.

Pull a power move and bring your own. Ask for an empty ramekin and fill it with your own sauce.

Well, we don't have any Canes where I live so the only time I visit them is when I'm visiting a different city so I don't have my own sauce on me. We only usually go because my wife loves it, otherwise I wouldn't even bother going.

^pretty much

While I'm not terribly familiar with exclusivity agreements for food vendors, I think it's clear that the issue is the lack of communication by the mall, which subsequently resulted in Raising Cane's investment with the belief that they'd be able to operate

It could have been prevented with transparency and communication

El_Marsh posted...

^pretty much

While I'm not terribly familiar with exclusivity agreements for food vendors, I think it's clear that the issue is the lack of communication by the mall, which subsequently resulted in Raising Cane's investment with the belief that they'd be able to operate

It could have been prevented with transparency and communication

It's not simply a miscommunication. I'd imagine this amounts to a breach of contract.

Okay but how does that invalidate what I said about the lack of communication?

El_Marsh posted...

Okay but how does that invalidate what I said about the lack of communication?

Makes it sound more innocent.

I wonder if they can just get rid of the McDonalds somehow Because that McDonalds might start causing more problems if they are left there

Judgmenl posted...

Every grocery store here sells pre-cooked chicken (Fried, Rotisserie, tenders, wins, ect.)

Fuck most places have a full on wing bar.

Really? Places here do sometimes have pre-cooked chicken, but I havent seen places with a wing bar where I live yet

BlackScythe0 posted...

It's not simply a miscommunication. I'd imagine this amounts to a breach of contract.

Probably not, actually. The contract they signed likely just amounts to "you can do business here," without making any specific concessions about the kind of business they would be allowed to do. The clause about not being able to sell chicken fingers is something that absolutely should have been in the contract, and leaving it out is obviously negligent enough on the mall's part to make them fully liable for any losses incurred by Raising Cane's, but I doubt anything about the contract itself was actually breached.

Of course, that's just a legal technicality. They're still 100% liable and also a bunch of dinks.

LinkPizza posted...

Really? Places here do sometimes have pre-cooked chicken, but I havent seen places with a wing bar where I live yet

Yes we have a hybrid wing/salad bar with sushi and other things.
Also even Walmart has this stuff like wtf?

McDonald's doesn't even sell chicken strips anymore, how are you gonna get an exclusive right to something you don't even do? Also I thought they were just around in the 2000s, were the selects really around back in 94?

Judgmenl posted...

Yes we have a hybrid wing/salad bar with sushi and other things.
Also even Walmart has this stuff like wtf?

Yeah it's just a hot food bar. Tons of places have those.

Exactly, this has been common for 10+ years.

Muscles posted...

McDonald's doesn't even sell chicken strips anymore, how are you gonna get an exclusive right to something you don't even do? Also I thought they were just around in the 2000s, were the selects really around back in 94?

Presumably there's enough overlap between the market for chicken nuggets and chicken strips that they felt that was a way to secure a solid competitive advantage for a product they weren't as confident in.

Muscles posted...

McDonald's doesn't even sell chicken strips anymore, how are you gonna get an exclusive right to something you don't even do? Also I thought they were just around in the 2000s, were the selects really around back in 94?

They already have the rights: no need to "get". And big companies don't give things away regardless of whether they are useful to them. They especially don't give things away to competitors. They demand payment. Gifting is for little guys with no lawyers.

Judgmenl posted...

Yes we have a hybrid wing/salad bar with sushi and other things.
Also even Walmart has this stuff like wtf?

My Wal-Mary doesnt At least, it didnt the last time I went there. We do have the cooked rotisserie chicken, and stuff like that. But I dont ever remember seeing a wing bar type thing But maybe its changed recently Or maybe its different than what Im thinking of We do have a sushi area in the base commissary, though

wpot posted...

They already have the rights: no need to "get". And big companies don't give things away regardless of whether they are useful to them. They especially don't give things away to competitors. They demand payment. Gifting is for little guys with no lawyers.

They didn't always have the rights, they got it in 94, your hissy fit over "get" is stupid af

Muscles posted...

They didn't always have the rights, they got it in 94

And they did so by asking the mall to not allow anyone else to sell the item in question, as a condition of setting up shop there. They don't have to "earn" that exclusivity any other way. If they wanted to, they could stipulate that the mall couldn't allow any stores to sell Sony products and the mall would have had to agree to that to get McDonalds in.

This isn't a broader monopoly situation, it's specifically a deal between McDonalds and this mall. McD's felt the deal would benefit them, so they asked for it. The mall felt that having McD's on site would benefit them more than having to refuse any other chicken strip sales would, so they agreed to it. There's nothing more to it than that. If somebody wants to sell chicken strips anywhere outside of this specific mall, they can.

adjl posted...

And they did so by asking the mall to not allow anyone else to sell the item in question, as a condition of setting up shop there. They don't have to "earn" that exclusivity any other way. If they wanted to, they could stipulate that the mall couldn't allow any stores to sell Sony products and the mall would have had to agree to that to get McDonalds in.

This isn't a broader monopoly situation, it's specifically a deal between McDonalds and this mall. McD's felt the deal would benefit them, so they asked for it. The mall felt that having McD's on site would benefit them more than having to refuse any other chicken strip sales would, so they agreed to it. There's nothing more to it than that. If somebody wants to sell chicken strips anywhere outside of this specific mall, they can.

But they don't even sell chicken strips, why would they want that exclusivity instead of burgers, their main thing

Muscles posted...

But they don't even sell chicken strips, why would they want that exclusivity instead of burgers, their main thing

Somebody who stands in a mall food court and thinks "I'm in the mood for a burger" stands a decent chance of choosing McDonalds. Somebody who stands in a mall food court and thinks "I'm in the mood for chicken strips" probably won't choose to get McNuggets instead. If you get rid of all other chicken strip options, though, they head to McDonalds and either buy McNuggets or choose something else from McDonalds while they're in line. Either way, McDonalds wins.

Burger exclusivity might seem like the more beneficial option, but most fast food restaurants would outright refuse to open if they couldn't sell burgers. Either the mall wasn't so desperate as to agree to such an extreme exclusivity deal or McD's didn't want to push their luck by going that hard.

Who the fuck names their dog Raising Cane

Muscles posted...

But they don't even sell chicken strips, why would they want that exclusivity instead of burgers, their main thing

I love how youre being argumentative with people and then you misread the story and keep arguing that they dont even sell chicken strips when that isnt what their exclusive deal is

Imagine trying to have a monopoly over such a common fast food as chicken fingers? McDonald's you are ridiculous .

Lil_Bit83 posted...

Imagine trying to have a monopoly over such a common fast food as chicken fingers? McDonald's you are ridiculous .

It's more a matter of trying to make sure they had a secure future in in a mall that I'm guessing wasn't doing too well at the time. By setting up in said mall, McDonalds probably contributed a fair amount to their subsequent success (having food on-site does a lot to keep people in the mall and buying things, and is generally a good sign for anyone considering investing in it), and they wanted to make sure they benefited from that success instead of having a bunch of competition move in as soon as the mall started picking up and capitalizing on their investment.

It seems a little ridiculous at first glance, but I think it was a reasonable business move to make that agreement, and presumably the old owners of the mall felt the same way (hence they agreed to it). The problem here isn't McDonalds holding a monopoly on chicken, it's that the mall failed to let a prospective tenant know they wouldn't be able to serve chicken (which was an absolute dealbreaker for said tenant) until they'd already invested quite a lot in setting up there. There's a good chance that the mall could renegotiate the deal with McDonalds (and probably boot them out if they weren't willing to compromise and the initial deal didn't guarantee them a place indefinitely) if they tried, but this approach was totally unfair to Raising Cane's.

adjl posted...

It's more a matter of trying to make sure they had a secure future in in a mall that I'm guessing wasn't doing too well at the time. By setting up in said mall, McDonalds probably contributed a fair amount to their subsequent success (having food on-site does a lot to keep people in the mall and buying things, and is generally a good sign for anyone considering investing in it), and they wanted to make sure they benefited from that success instead of having a bunch of competition move in as soon as the mall started picking up and capitalizing on their investment.

It seems a little ridiculous at first glance, but I think it was a reasonable business move to make that agreement, and presumably the old owners of the mall felt the same way (hence they agreed to it). The problem here isn't McDonalds holding a monopoly on chicken, it's that the mall failed to let a prospective tenant know they wouldn't be able to serve chicken (which was an absolute dealbreaker for said tenant) until they'd already invested quite a lot in setting up there. There's a good chance that the mall could renegotiate the deal with McDonalds (and probably boot them out if they weren't willing to compromise and the initial deal didn't guarantee them a place indefinitely) if they tried, but this approach was totally unfair to Raising Cane's.

Either way it's ridiculous.