49 Comment

  • I’d rather see that beautiful old building demolished than have Trump’s name on it.

  • Trump is a loser

  • Doesn’t he have more importants things to be doing nowadays?

  • Accountering

    I don’t think he is going to find a very receptive court in DC for this lawsuit…

    • It’ll likely be arbitrated

    • A contract is a contract. If there is no provision in the contract that allows Andres to back out, he should lose. “Should” meaning according to the law, not according to moral right or wrong. If the contract is clear, it won’t even get to a jury.

      • Sure, but that doesn’t mean Trump gets $10 million dollars. It’s unlikely the contract clause lays out an actual damage amount. Unless they can agree to a payment of damages, it’ll go to at least an arbitration or mediation.

        That contract probably also has some clause that protects Andres from putting his name on something that could damage his reputation. I’m not sure Trump wins this one.

        • Scrillin

          Wouldn’t the damages be at least the rent due over the lifetime of the lease?

          • Not likely. Trump has an affirmative duty to find another tenant to mitigate his damages. If he fails to make a reasonable effort, he may take zilch. If he gets another tenant at a lower rent, then the damages are the difference.

          • Tsar of Truxton

            I don’t think there is a duty to mitigate in a commercial lease in D.C. However, that would mean he would need to leave the space vacant for the whole term of the lease to collect the full 10 million, which would be bad business for him. I suspect, he will find a new tenant for a small portion of the rent and make Andres cover the difference.

        • If it’s a legitimate breach of the contract, then Donald will win. But courts do not give punitive damages. Trump will have to show some loss worth $10 million.

  • Let’s hope the folks behind that petition show some financial support for Jose Andres.

  • Good. You shouldn’t be able to break contracts because someone is a meanie. Seriously, if you want to stand on principle, put your money where your mouth is (I guess that will be $10 mil). Let that be a lesson to think carefully before you do business with people, especially *known* quantities like Trump.

    • Let’s get real: While the impetus for Andres pulling out was clearly moral/political/emotional, he runs a successful, growing international restaurant empire and clearly makes sound, rational business decisions. The withdrawal wasn’t an immediate announcement by any means, either. I’m quite confident Andres has excellent counsel that felt they have legal ground to stand on.
      Also, even if he has to pay off Trump for a few million in a settlement, I bet it’s still been good for his overall business. I personally made a point of heading to Oyamel the weekend following the announcement even though I hadn’t planned to, and doubly enjoyed my meal.

      • You don’t seriously think that the hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars that Andres is going to have to pay to Trump in a settlement over breach of contract will be made up for by a few extra people like yourself eating at his restaurants to applaud him, do you?

        • Of course not. But I wouldn’t be surprised if as he expands, especially into new cities, he’ll be thought of as “the guy who stood up to Trump” for a long time. I think in most urban areas, that will be a net positive.

        • Pretty sure that wasn’t what was being suggested… The suggestion was, I assume, that he evaluated the negative PR surrounding the project, viewed as less than ideal opening conditions, and consulted his council to comb the contract for legal grounds to stand on that would allow him to breach contract.

          • This. Andres isn’t an idiot. He won’t gain much from a few more people eating in his restaurants out of solidarity, but he would probably lose much more if he stayed in this deal and suffered the backlash. He took a calculated risk by pulling out, and even if he is in breach of contract, I’m sure his army of lawyers will help make sure he pays the least amount possible.

        • I agree that $10 million is a steep bill. But I bet he would have faced a costly backlash in DC had he remained in the deal. So, a many people going out of his way to go to his restaurant vs the many who would have avoided it had it been associated with Trump… maybe it won’t completely net out, but the relevant benchmark isn’t the settlement value. It’s the settlement value less the difference in business, where that includes accounting for the costs of the backlash.
          Sucks to be him, cause he was going to be punished for Trump’s bigotry either way. But I have to agree with whoever noted that Trump was definitely a known quantity when this contract was signed.

        • How about a Kickstarter or GoFundMe for Andres.

          • no! Mr. Andres is more than capable that funding his own legal fees.
            This is the price of doing business – he should have know who he was getting into business with. I’m sure if people did not react the way they did to Trump’s comments the restaurant would have opened as planned.

    • If the person with whom you have a contract starts flapping his gob with racist diatribes that are going to prove toxic to your own business, then you’ve got a pretty obvious out.

    • People break contracts all the time for a variety of reasons some good and some bad. Some are prepared for the consequence, other are not. I doubt that this was something Andres did on a whim with little thought regardless of why. I am quite certain he consulted with his lawyer, weight the pros/cons, and decided to do it anyway. This is not a surprise, he knew this was coming. While I am no way comparing Andreas decision to Civil Rights marchers from the 1960’s, they knew what they were doing was illegal and downright dangerous but decided it was important enough to do anyway. This seems to have been important enough for him for whatever reason(s) and did it anyway.

  • I Dont Get It

    How Presidential of him!

  • Any idea where the complaint was filed? All I’ve been able to find are tweets about the suit, but no links to the complaint itself.

    • DC’s federal district court. Washingtonian has the suit on their website but I’m having trouble with the link.

  • Still astonished how Jose Andres continues to come out of this as some anti-Trump hero to people. Trump has a long history of bigotry, racism, and sensationalism that should be off putting from engaging in business with him in the first place.

    • Andes is a business man. His restaurants are successful in part because of where they’re located. A major new, upscale hotel under development was, I’m sure, an appealing locale to him for a new restaurant. I doubt anyone in his shoes would have, at the time, given much thought to Trump being the owner.

      • Which gets directly to my point. he didn’t stand up to Trump or do this out of respect for his workers, this was bottom-line driven, just like the appeal of the location (despite Trumps name on the building) is what drove his decision to open shop there. Clearly, Andres is not a bad guy, but I really hate to see him portrayed as some Cesar Chavez restaurateur because he decided to pull the plug on the deal after the guy who owns the building called Mexican’s criminals. Plenty of business owners turn down opportunities based on personal and moral objections, I think it is safe to say that many (but certainly not all) would choose to forgo opening a restaurant in a Trump Hotel based on Trump’s history.

        • Wait, was he referring to all Mexicans as criminals, or just the illegal ones?

          • Mexicans vs. Illegal Mexicans? I don’t even know where to start…

          • It is an important distinction that needs to be made if you want to understand why a lot of people are upset. Let me answer my own question, though: yes, he was talking about illegal immigrants (not making a blanket statement on all Mexicans). I don’t even want to defend the guy- for other reasons- but let’s get our facts straight.

          • You’re missing my point. Before you separate legal vs illegal immigrants, you need to note that “Mexican” and “Immigrant” are non synonyms. Some (most) immigrants are not Mexican, and some Mexicans are not immigrants.

  • I’ve heard Andres’ people wisely put a morality clause in their agreement with the Trumps, knowing that Trump might do something stupid. After Trump’s comments on immigration, Andres exercised his right to exit the project according the agreement.

    • If this is true, I am so, so glad to hear. It makes me think more highly of Andres and his team, that they recognized this risk.

    • I hear Trump’s (counter)argument in the complaint is that his views were known to Andres when Andres signed the agreement. Not a totally wild claim really, but would certainly put a pin in Andres’ argument that Trump breached the morality clause if Andres was aware of his views.

  • I guess now we know how he actually makes all his money. Suing people and skimming off other people’s investment money for his bankrupt projects.

  • An interesting case. Normally the lessor would have to mitigate damages (get another tenant) and any potential damages/loss would take that into account, so $10mil is a crazy number.

    On the other hand, if Trump HAS tried to mitigate and truly can’t get anyone else to sign a lease agreement, that seems to support Andres’ case. Ironic.

  • “Thrice-wived Ego-Lizard”

  • swim with sharks, don’t be surprised when you get bitten. One reason and one reason only people do business with Trump – greed! Jose is just as greedy and he knew damn well who he was getting in bed with.

Comments are closed.