It appears that Disney is trying to evict Superdry from Disney Springs, in Walt Disney World, over their lower performance during a pandemic. According to Florida Politics writer Gabrielle Russon, Disney gave the UK based store notice to vacate in October of 2021, and they were supposed to do so by Monday, March 28th.

So six months notice.

Superdry is now suing Disney over the early cancellation of their lease that was supposed to go to June 2026.

According the lawsuit documents filed with the Orange Circuit Court in March, Superdry’s sales dipped considerably after the pandemic forced closures at Disney Springs. Since their clientele tend to be international customers, and international travel has not bounced back yet, their sales dropped from $3.05-$3.5 million between July 2016-June 2019 to about half of that for 2020-2021.

Understandable given “these unprecedented” times.  Which was an excuse the Walt Disney Company gave a lot when it came to their performance or the performance of their parks and films.

I thought Disney is trying to be about what’s “right and wrong” or at least should be according to Bob Iger? I guess that only applies when Disney is in trouble and needs to do PR damage control.

But I digress.

The filing went on to say that the lease did give Disney and Superdry the option of early termination after five years if the stores receipts fell below $4.2 million.

“Tenant was slowly bouncing back from the uncontrollable effects of the COVID pandemic toward the end of the fifth lease year,” the lawsuit said. “While international tourism has recently begun to resume, it is far from pre-pandemic levels.”

However, Superdry is arguing that they put a lot of money into the store building, as it was supposed to be leased for at least ten years, with the lease being up in June 2026 at the earliest. They also argue that there is a force majeure provision in the contract that should have covered incidents like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Superdry is also arguing that the lease has a force majeure provision which should protect the store from a disaster such as the COVID-19 pandemic.

Gabrielle Russon does point out that there was a previous instance where a lawsuit arose from Disney not letting another group cancel a conference without a $1 million penalty over rising COVID-19 cases. That contract also had a force majeure clause, but the courts threw it out. Perhaps that could set a precedent here.

What’s the point of having a force majeure clause if it isn’t going to actually apply?

Disney is making huge gestures over the Florida Bill and going on about fighting for what’s right, while simultaneously kicking out businesses that suffered from the pandemic that used as a reason to explain their underperformance.

What do you think? Comment and let us know!

Source: Florida Politics, (hat tip to WDWNT)