## Facts

- A shopping-center developer leased a department-store space to Goldblatt under a long-term lease that included a site plan showing parking areas and access roads.
- The lease required the developer to pave parking areas around the center, provide at least 1,000 parking spaces, and complete a rear driveway connection to a nearby road.
- The developer paved the front parking area but left substantial rear areas unpaved, resulting in about 732 spaces; evidence showed customer parking was generally adequate after the grand opening.
- The developer did not complete the rear driveway connection to the nearby road.
- The developer later acquired adjacent land not part of the original center and leased it to another department store (Zayre).
- Goldblatt sued alleging (1) a restrictive covenant barring leasing to a competing department store, (2) interference with alleged exclusive parking easement rights, and (3) breach of construction/paving obligations and sought specific performance.
- The trial court entered judgment on the pleadings for defendants on the restrictive covenant and easement counts and, after a bench trial, denied specific performance on the construction count.

## Issues

1. Whether a lease restriction on leasing space in the “shopping center” to a competing department store extends to adjacent after-acquired property not part of the center when the lease was executed.
2. Whether the lease and site plan created an exclusive easement or other exclusive right for Goldblatt in the shopping center parking areas.
3. Whether specific performance should compel completion of promised paving and access improvements, including the claimed 1,000-parking-space requirement.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the restrictive covenant claim, holding the restriction did not apply to the after-acquired adjacent tract.
- The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the easement claim, holding the lease did not grant Goldblatt an exclusive easement in the parking areas.
- The appellate court reversed in part on the construction/paving claim and remanded, ordering specific performance to complete paving and the rear driveway connection as shown in the lease plan.
- The appellate court declined to order specific performance of the numeric requirement of 1,000 parking spaces.

## Legal Principles

- Restrictions on use or competition tied to described premises are strictly construed and generally do not burden after-acquired property absent express language extending the restriction.
- Exclusive easements in shopping-center common areas, including parking, are not inferred from general site plans or shared-use provisions; clear, express grant language is required.
- Specific performance is available in commercial lease disputes to enforce clear contractual promises to construct or complete physical improvements affecting the leased premises.
- Substantial performance is assessed against the contract’s promised performance, not only against later perceptions of practical adequacy.
- A court may tailor specific performance to enforce concrete construction obligations while withholding relief for a numeric target where the tenant does not show concrete harm from the shortfall.

## Conclusion

The court held that the lease’s competition restriction and parking arrangements did not extend beyond the original shopping-center tract and did not create an exclusive parking easement, but it ordered specific performance requiring completion of the promised paving and rear access improvements, excluding enforcement of the 1,000-space minimum.


Goldblatt Bros., Inc. v. Addison Green Meadows, Inc., 290 N.E.2d 715 (Ill. App. Ct. 1972)