2. Winn-Dixie grocery stores are often the anchor tenant in a shopping center. The leases that...

Transcribed Image Text:

2. Winn-Dixie grocery stores are often the anchor tenant in a shopping center. The leases that Winn-Dixie negotiates often include a "grocery exclusive" provision which limits the amount of space neighboring stores can devote to selling grocery products that compete with Winn-Dixie. Winn-Dixie sued when it discovered that many stores located in the same shopping center as its own stores were selling "groceries" in a "sales area" greater than the grocery exclusive provisions permitted. The federal district court found against Winn- Dixie, issuing a ruling that greatly limited the scope of the "grocery exclusive" provision. However, on appeal, the court of appeals disagreed with that interpretation and remanded the dispute to the district court with the instruction that "groceries" include I food and many household supplies. Upon remand, the district court ruled that prior to a judicial opinion issued on February 20, 2001, the neighboring stores had no notice of the actual scope of the "groceries exclusive" provision. As a result, the district court only applied the "groceries" definition found by the court of appeals to leases executed after February 20, 2001. Did the district court err in restricting the reach of the "groceries" definition to leases executed after February 20, 2001? 2. Winn-Dixie grocery stores are often the anchor tenant in a shopping center. The leases that Winn-Dixie negotiates often include a "grocery exclusive" provision which limits the amount of space neighboring stores can devote to selling grocery products that compete with Winn-Dixie. Winn-Dixie sued when it discovered that many stores located in the same shopping center as its own stores were selling "groceries" in a "sales area" greater than the grocery exclusive provisions permitted. The federal district court found against Winn- Dixie, issuing a ruling that greatly limited the scope of the "grocery exclusive" provision. However, on appeal, the court of appeals disagreed with that interpretation and remanded the dispute to the district court with the instruction that "groceries" include I food and many household supplies. Upon remand, the district court ruled that prior to a judicial opinion issued on February 20, 2001, the neighboring stores had no notice of the actual scope of the "groceries exclusive" provision. As a result, the district court only applied the "groceries" definition found by the court of appeals to leases executed after February 20, 2001. Did the district court err in restricting the reach of the "groceries" definition to leases executed after February 20, 2001?