Legal Case Study:	Best Buy Store - San Antonio, TX
Illustrates:	Use of sign valuation techniques to support tenant's clam for damages arising from landlord's failure to erect signs by an appointed date.
Background:	Best Buy Co., Inc. held the grand opening of its San Antonio, Texas store on August 18, 1995. Per lease agreement, the shopping center owner was to erect two double-faced pylon signs identifying the site to both directions of traffic passing on adjacent I-410. Both signs, featuring the company's distinctive "ticket" logo, were to be installed no later than June 1, 1995. Located away from the store and proximate to the interstate's frontage road, Sign A (45 ft. high and 297 sq. feet per face) did not become fully operational until the day before the grand opening. Sign B (60 ft. high and 207 sq. ft. per face), located in front of the store, wasn't fully operational until September 4, 1995. Consequently, Best Buy was deprived of Sign A for 78 days, and Sign B for 96 days. Best Buy demanded restitution from the shopping center owner for the delay in construction of the signs and resulting lost exposures. The owner refused the demand, and Best Buy brought suit.
Legal Issues Raised:	Will applied valuation techniques and methods sustain a civil claim for damages arising from a failure to provide advertising exposures via on-premise signage as promised?
Steps Taken:
Best Buy's attorneys retained the services of signage valuation expert, Dr. R. James Claus, to assess the damages caused by construction delays and consequent loss of the pre-opening advertising exposures.
Results / Conclusion:
Claus' valuation techniques and methodology were accepted by both parties in the dispute. The time periods during which the damaged occurred was readjusted by consent of both parties, and the Claus formulas were applied. Following the legal pleadings and Dr. Claus' deposition concerning the value of the subject signage to the business (valued at $227,536 both pre and post-opening), the case was settled by the parties before trial began. Although the exact terms of the settlement are confidential, Best Buy's attorneys report that compensation to Best Buy in the form of a sizeable rental rebate was in keeping with the same terms Best Buy had proposed, and the owner had flatly rejected, before a signage valuation expert became involved in the case. One Best Buy attorney summed up as follows: "With [expert testimony], Best Buy was able to show…that there is substantial dollar value connected to the repeated exposure of [a] well-recognized trademark…sign to actual and potential customers."
More information about this case is available in the article by Wade Swormstedt, "Legislation Matters: Delays and Damages", Signs of the Times, March 1998, p. 52. More information about valuation approaches is available in the article by Claus and Bass, "Legislation Matters: The Economic Worth of On-Premise Signs, Part II", Signs of the Times, October 1998, p. 72. Information on possible legal issues is available in the article by Claus and Bass, "Legislation Matters: The Economic Worth of On-Premise Signs, Part I", Signs of the Times, September 1998, p. 58.

Back to the Signage home page