In other words, a landlord decided not to renew a lease and opened their own business.
On the one hand, it's a bit sleazy to attempt to cash in on the previous shop's customer relationships. But I have trouble calling this "stolen." Presumably, if it were a Starbucks that were opened instead, it wouldn't be so objectionable even though the net effect on the previous store owners is largely the same.
I agree the thing carries something of a smell and is unfortunate. On the other hand, I'm not sure how much salable value there is in a typical florist (or indeed in many retail businesses) even if it's throwing off a reasonable income stream for the owners that would lead someone to buy an existing business, rather than just starting fresh.
I'm a bit confused on how this is relevant? would a employee signing a non-compete agreement have prevented this? Even if there was one with the previous lanlord, would that have applied in the case of a sale?
Husband wife owns a florist. Has for decades in a county fourth highes per capita income in us.
Built a nice life but it was time to retire and sell the business.
They did not own their building.
New landlord buys building ( shop in nice main street area.) raises rent to outrageous amount. Too much to run the business.
Husband wife team can't sell florist before New lease starts and they do not sign lease.
The very Next week !!!! Next week - building owner puts up new sign for a new florist.
The owners lost everything. They owned some things like coolers - and got $$ for those.