Retail Matters – Summer 2018


A Christmas list for retailers: top tips for[...]
He’s making a list, and checking it twice. Or so the song goes. Just like the […]
He’s making a list, and checking it twice. Or so the song goes. Just like the man in red, retail tenants and their landlords should be getting organised for the festive season now, so as to avoid any issues in what is generally the busiest time of the year. Read on to ensure that you don’t miss something off your Christmas list.
Dates for the diary
The December quarter day falls on Christmas Day and many dates in a retail lease can be linked to the quarter day with the most obvious being payment of rent. Parties should, however, also consider whether any other events are triggered by this date, for example a break date or rent review. Any notices that need to be served should be drafted and issued before the holiday period commences to ensure that dates are not missed.
Many service charge years end on 31 December and landlords need to ensure that budgets for the new service charge period are circulated well before the end of the year to ensure that advance payments continue to be received. For any tenant on a turnover rent, the figures from the December quarter are generally key figures and may also be a trigger for the annual reconciliation process.
Financial considerations
Trading during Christmas can be a make or break event for some turnover rent arrangements. Landlords need to ensure that they are fully conversant with the turnover provisions in all of their leases and that their records and spreadsheets are fully up to date in order that they can spot any early signs that a tenant’s trading is not reaching agreed thresholds.
The details of what constitutes turnover always need to be carefully considered but these are particularly important at the festive period when returns and refunds can often be higher. Landlords need to keep a close eye on returns policies to ensure that certain stores are not being used for a disproportionate number of returns which would skew figures in the tenant’s favour. Online sales also need to be taken into account, as do ‘click and collect’ arrangements. Any order that is either generated in store or collected from store should be included for the purpose of calculating turnover.
Christmas is one of the most important trading periods for many retail tenants, with a significant proportion of their profit being generated during this time. As such any new tenant will want to take access to their premises no later than the start of November in order that they can be open for trade in December. If a pre-Christmas access date is missed then a tenant is unlikely to want to take occupation the new year and it is imperative therefore that deadlines are adhered to.
Trading figures for Christmas are often a very good indicator of a tenant’s overall performance and landlords need to pay particular attention to tenants who they think may be experiencing difficulties as from a landlord’s perspective agreeing to either a short term reduction in rent or payment of rent on a monthly basis for a short period is likely to be preferable to leaving rent unpaid.
Late night shopping
Extended trading hours are common at Christmas and whilst these can be a blessing for consumers, they can be more problematic for retailers. Retail leases, particularly those in shopping centres, often contain keep open clauses, obliging tenants to trade during the opening hours of the centre. Any amendments to standard trading hours need to be notified to tenants as soon as possible but, before agreeing new opening hours, landlords should check carefully whether their planning consent contains any limitation on trading hours.
Longer opening hours will also lead to additional servicing requirements and before extensions are agreed landlords need ensure that these additional demands can be met. Planning consents for retail units and shopping centres often contain restrictions on the hours during which the premises can be serviced or the size of vehicle that can be used. Landlords should also ensure that any additional expenses they incur in relation to extended opening can be recovered via the service charge to prevent any shortfall.
Increased footfall may also necessitate more regular or additional maintenance checks which will need to be performed at agreed times in order to minimise any reduction to trade. An enhanced security provision may also be required to deal with any antisocial behaviour that arises either as a result of overcrowded stores or by customers celebrating a little too enthusiastically.
Seasonal events, promotions and pop ups
Whilst festive events and elaborate decorations create a pleasant shopping experience (and hopefully therefore increase customers’ expenditure) they also have an associated cost. Most centres and retail spaces will have an agreed marketing budget and landlords need to take care that any Christmas events, etc fall within their budget and can be recovered from tenants.
Christmas is also a favoured time for one-off promotions and pop up stores. Whilst maximising trading space may ultimately lead to increased profit, landlords need to ensure that any temporary lettings do not impinge on any exclusion zones agreed with other tenants that must therefore be kept open and unobstructed. Pop-up stores, short term lettings and new offerings must all be properly documented to ensure that the investment value of the reversion is maintained and that vacant possession can be obtained at the tend of the term. Further detail on the subject of pop-up stores can be found in our article ‘Popping up on a high street near you’.
Walker Morris comment
Christmas is one of the busiest times of the year for retailers and customers alike. Both landlords and tenants need to ensure that they plan ahead in order to ensure that profits are maximised and issues kept to an absolute minimum so that everyone can enjoy the happiest of holidays. Should you require any advice, please get in touch.

Managing data protection risks for retailers
‘Check out’ Walker Morris’ retail and regulatory specialists’ recent articles on what GDPR means for […]
‘Check out’ Walker Morris’ retail and regulatory specialists’ recent articles on what GDPR means for the retail industry and how to manage data protection risk in your supply chain, for our latest practical advice.

Supply chain services considerations
Walker Morris Partner and Commercial Contract specialist James Crayton offers some practical tips for retailers […]
Walker Morris Partner and Commercial Contract specialist James Crayton offers some practical tips for retailers following recent media focus on supply chain issues.
In November 2017 Yum Brands owned KFC awarded DHL and QSL its contract to manage its British supply chain, ending its relationship with delivery company Bidvest. Less than a week after the new contract went live in February 2018, hundreds of KFC branches were forced to close due to a number of deliveries being incomplete or delayed.
JD Wetherspoon removed steak from its Tuesday steak club menu in January 2018 following reported food compliance issues with its meat supplier, Russell Hume. Wetherspoons subsequently cancelled its contract with this supplier and the supplier entered administration.
These real world examples highlight some key considerations for retailers to keep in mind when negotiating supply chain contracts.
Exclusivity
Awarding a supplier exclusivity will undoubtedly put you in a strong position to negotiate lower costs, however you should take care when putting all your eggs in one basket. Ensure your supply contract contains provisions to allow you to source from third parties in the event that your supplier has issues. This might mean short term costs, however some contracts allow these to be recovered from the failing supplier. You may also wish to consider including a provision allowing you to terminate the agreement in the event that supply is disrupted for a specified period.
Service Levels
Choosing measurable service levels and documenting what the measure of success/ failure looks like in an SLA is only effective if it is properly incorporated into your agreement. Moreover, your agreement should deal with what happens when such service levels are not met. A service credit regime may seem like an appropriate remedy but consider whether it is enough of a “stick” to guarantee proper performance. It may be that other obligations, such as escalation or a performance improvement plan, are a more practical option. Such service level terms may, in many cases, prove adequate. However, in case of persistent breaches or breaches of certain ‘critical’ service levels, you may also wish to include the additional remedies of a loss of exclusivity or a specific right to terminate.
Exit Management and Implementation Planning
The start of any supply relationship is the best time to think about what is going to happen on exit. Once the contract is signed, commercial pressure on the supplier to agree to help on exit is likely to dissipate, and the momentum needed to agree a post-signing exit plan is often lost. A detailed exit management plan containing transitional service provisions could be key to ensuring you have the support required from the exiting supplier for a smooth transition to a new provider and a robust exit clause should set out the support you require in the agreement itself. Consider provisions which document the scope, length and cost of transitional services and also inserting obligations on your exiting supplier to assign or novate any sub-contracts or licences in place with third parties to the new supplier.
For further information or assistance with drafting supply contracts or managing your supply chain, please do not hesitate to contact James or any member of Walker Morris’ Commercial Contracts or Retail teams.

The rise of the CVA
Following the approval of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) by the creditors of Toys “R” […]
Following the approval of the company voluntary arrangement (CVA) by the creditors of Toys “R” Us in December 2017, 2018 has seen a number of high profile CVAs. The high street is already facing well-documented challenges and with Brexit likely to cause further economic uncertainty, Gawain Moore explains why CVAs are increasingly seen as an innovative alternative to formal insolvency procedures.
Market conditions
The high street continues to be a difficult place to trade at the moment for retailers and food outlets alike. Businesses are continuing to face a squeeze from a number of factors, including the continued growth of online shopping, soaring labour costs, business rates, the popularity of food delivery companies and a drop in consumer spending amid economic uncertainty.
With this market background, it is unsurprising that a number of companies are considering CVAs in an attempt to restructure their business in the hope that they can weather the storm.
Although not the most common insolvency procedure in the UK, a CVA is often considered when a company has a large number of leasehold real estate interests which it needs to restructure to survive. In many cases, long term leases will have been entered into several years ago which include rent, rates and other obligations which are no longer viable in today’s market.
What is a CVA?
Although an administrator or liquidator can propose a CVA, in the current climate CVAs are being proposed with the intention of avoiding the company going into administration or liquidation. In this context, a CVA involves a proposal by the company’s directors to its unsecured creditors for a compromise or arrangement in satisfaction of its debts. It should be noted that a CVA cannot affect the rights of a secured lender to enforce its security without its specific consent.
In theory at least, a CVA should produce a better financial return for unsecured creditors than if the company was placed in a formal insolvency procedure. In contrast to other insolvency procedures, the directors remain in control of the business which continues to operate, subject to the terms of the CVA and under the supervision of an insolvency practitioner.
A CVA allows much greater flexibility than insolvency procedures such as administration or liquidation. The company and its unsecured creditors effectively agree when and what percentage of the company’s debts will be paid and in real estate focussed CVAs (see below) can amend the company’s lease obligations. The directors, along with their advisors, will draw up proposals for the restructuring (which commonly include a redrawing of the lease terms) and all unsecured creditors then vote to either approve or reject the proposal. The CVA must be carefully drafted to ensure that it provides a more commercially attractive outcome for the creditors than an administration or liquidation.
If 75 per cent. or more in value of the company’s unsecured creditors vote in favour of the proposals, they become binding upon all of the company’s unsecured creditors, including those who voted against the proposals and/or were eligible to vote but did not receive notice of the proposals.
Challenging a CVA
Once approved by the requisite majority, a creditor cannot take any step against the company to recover any debt or enforce any rights that fall within the scope of the CVA. The only challenge to a CVA that a creditor can make is by an application to court. The application has to be made within twenty eight days of the CVA approval or, in the case of a creditor who was not given notice of the creditors’ meeting, within 28 days of the day on which the creditor became aware of the decision.
A CVA can only be challenged on the basis that the arrangement unfairly prejudices the interests of a creditor of the company, or there has been some material irregularity at or in relation to either the decision procedure or (if requested) the meeting at which the arrangement was approved.
The concepts of prejudice and unfairness are questions of fact and are distinct considerations. A CVA can be prejudicial in the sense that it can treat different unsecured creditors in different ways. This is precisely the approach retail CVAs have adopted in treating landlords differently from other unsecured creditors and also treating landlords differently as between themselves. The question of fairness depends on the overall effect of the CVA.
The court will consider whether any creditor has been unfairly prejudiced by the CVA but challenges are not common. This may because the evidential burden on the creditor is likely to be high and the time period to bring a challenge is relatively short. In addition, for PR reasons a major creditor may not want to be responsible for challenging a proposal which is intended to save a business and in the case of a national chain, possibly hundreds of jobs. Finally, if the CVA does fail following a challenge and the company ends up in administration or liquidation, the outcome for the creditor is likely to be worse than if the CVA was implemented.
Reasons for using real estate CVAs
The use (or attempted use in the case of BHS) of CVAs for companies with large property portfolios (such as retailers, food chains or hotels) has increased in recent times, as evidenced by BHS, Toys “R” Us and Byron Burgers and JJB Sports to mention just a few. A CVA offers a mechanism that allows the tenant company to restructure its lease obligations on a mass scale, without the need to negotiate with each individual landlord. A CVA can significantly reduce the real estate overheads of a company and can bring about the closure of unprofitable stores even where an individual landlord does not approve the CVA.
Real estate CVAs have commonly used an approach whereby properties are split into different categories. Leases of profitable stores may be left unchanged, save in some cases for the rent moving from quarterly to monthly to assist cash flow. Leases of marginal stores may be amended to provide for sizeable rent reductions and the option for substantial lease renegotiation. Finally, unprofitable stores which are unlikely to be viable are closed and the lease obligations brought to an end.
WM Comment
A CVA will not suit all situations but retailers and other businesses struggling with large lease liabilities should consider a CVA as a potential option to reduce those liabilities and help with overall profitability.
At Walker Morris we have a team of restructuring lawyers who have experience in both putting CVAs in place and challenging their validity. If you think that a CVA could help your business survive or you are a creditor on the wrong end of one, please get in touch and we will be happy to help.

Lease breaks: Top tips and traps for the unwary
In times of economic decline or uncertainty, many businesses look to divest themselves of surplus […]
In times of economic decline or uncertainty, many businesses look to divest themselves of surplus property to reduce rental commitment. With Brexit looming and the state of the high street the focus of some concern, Walker Morris’ specialist Real Estate Litigation Partner Martin McKeague reviews recent case law and provides practical advice for businesses considering their lease break options.
Context and key case law
Whilst the cost savings involved in a rationalisation exercise can be significant, so too can the risks. Once the decision has been made to bring a commercial lease to an end, the failure to serve a valid break notice can have drastic consequences. The business may lose the opportunity to break the lease and may therefore remain liable and tied into the property with long-term, unwanted commitments.
In the leading case of Mannai Investment v Eagle Star [1] in 1997, Lord Hoffmann famously said: “if the [termination] clause had said that the notice had to be on blue paper, it would have been no good serving a notice on pink paper, however clear it might have been that the tenant wanted to terminate.” In doing so he vividly articulated that strict compliance, with both contractual break conditions and any particular service provisions, is required for lease breaks to be effective.
Top tips and traps for the unwary
As such, very careful consideration must always be given to the exercise of any break. The starting point when serving a break notice must always be to examine the lease and the contractual provisions which set out the option to determine; any conditions which must be complied with; and any particular requirements for service (including when notice must be given, how notice must be served and on whom, and by whom, it must be served).
When?
The question of when a break notice can be served is very important, especially if the option is a one-off or ‘once and for all’ break (as opposed to a ‘rolling break’). There are then three dates to ascertain: the break date; the date by which notice must be served (that is, when the notice must be received by the other party); and, working back, the date by which the notice must actually be issued. If any of these are calculated incorrectly then there is a real risk that the break notice will not be validly drafted or served, and the lease will continue.
How?
It is essential to check whether the break clause contains a specific methodology for serving notice or whether the lease contains general ‘service of notices’ provisions elsewhere. Service must be effected in accordance with any contractually specified provision. For example, the lease may specify that service must be by fax or e-mail at a particular address; by first class or registered post; on an agent as well as, or instead of, on the party; or even that notice must be written on pink paper!
Who?
As indicated earlier, it must be ascertained exactly who must give the notice and on whom the notice must be served. However determining the correct party/ies is often more difficult than first imagined. In most cases the landlord and tenant are no longer the original contracting parties; the land or tenancy may be unregistered; the landlord/tenant may not be based in the UK; and/or the lease may specify that the notice must be served on an agent.
What? Conditional Break Options
Conditional break options should be approached with real caution. If the lease requires absolute compliance with one or more conditions, then failure to do so, no matter how trivial, will render the break ineffective. For example, if a break option was conditional on making payment of all lease sums and just a penny remained outstanding at the break date or other prescribed time, that penny would render the whole break invalid.
The most common condition is the payment of all rent due as at the Break Date. On the face of it, that seems straightforward and fair enough. However, is rent is defined within the lease and does it include service charge and/or insurance rent. If it does, can these be properly calculated or ascertained? Does rent (and potentially other sums) simply need to have fallen due under the lease, or do sums have to have been demanded? If sums need to have been demanded, can the tenant guarantee that the landlord will have demanded sums in time for the tenant to make payment?
Another common condition is for a tenant to comply with its repairing obligations. The landlord is under no obligation to confirm exactly what work it expects to be carried out, nor to provide any certainty prior to the break date that any works carried out are satisfactory to discharge the tenant’s obligations.
If conditions in a break option are not absolute, they are often drafted to say that the tenant must materially, substantially or reasonably comply with certain conditions. This is to try and protect the tenant from rendering the break invalid due to minor and inconsequential breaches. The problem here is that each of these terms can have a slightly different meaning and no guarantees can be given to provide absolute certainty of compliance. In these circumstances a tenant may be well advised to undertake the fullest possible compliance. Apart from the risk of a break being ineffective, a party will always face the risk of a damages claim for breach of covenant either during or after the end of a lease in any event. The fullest possible compliance has the dual-effect of mitigating that risk.
Faced with a conditional break and uncertainty as to exactly how to ensure compliance, the tenant in the recent case of Goldman Sachs v Procession House [2] opted for another option – it proactively applied to the court ahead of the break date, seeking a declaration as to exactly what was required.
The lease contained an option for the tenant to break five years prior to expiry of the contract term. At a rent of over £4 million per annum, service of an effective break notice would save the tenant over £20 million (and, conversely, service of an ineffective break would effectively cost it that amount). It was common ground between the parties that the break clause was conditional upon there being no arrears of the rent and the tenant delivering up vacant possession, but there was a dispute as to whether or not the successful exercise of the break was also conditional upon the tenant’s compliance with certain yielding-up/reinstatement obligations. The relevant provisions were:
Clause 23 Break Clause – The lease was terminable by the tenant “…subject to the tenant being able to yield up the premises with vacant possession as provided in clause 23.2”
Clause 23.2 – “On the expiration of [the break notice] the term shall cease and determine (and the tenant shall yield up the premises in accordance with clause 11 and with full vacant possession)…”
Clause 11 Yielding Up – “Unless not required by the landlord, the tenant shall at the end of the term remove any alterations or additions made to the premises (and make good any damage caused by that removal to the reasonable satisfaction of the landlord) and shall reinstate the premises to their original layout…”
In a tenant-friendly decision, taking into account both considerations of commercial common sense and the particular factual matrix surrounding alteration works carried out to the premises by the tenant, the court concluded that the conditionality of the break did not apply to the yielding-up provisions.
The court held that, being so open to interpretation (and therefore leaving the tenant effectively unable to ensure compliance), the requirements of clause 11 were not compatible with being a pre-condition to a break. The court considered that if the parties had intended compliance with clause 11 to be a pre-condition, then that should have been more clearly stated in the drafting.
WM Comment
There is a considerable amount of risk and time involved in serving a break notice and complying with the relevant conditions. The best advice for any retail tenant considering its options is to contact a specialist Real Estate Litigator, time, who will be able to advise on the break and overall exit strategy (including, where appropriate, any dilapidations/reinstatement issues).
For any further information or advice, please do not hesitate to contact Martin McKeague.
_________________
[1] Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
[2] Goldman Sachs International v Procession House Trustee Ltd (1) and Procession House Trustee 2 Ltd (2) (2018, unreported)

Lease or licence? A crucial distinction
The legal distinction between a lease and a licence is a crucial one, which can […]
The legal distinction between a lease and a licence is a crucial one, which can have very significant implications for any retailer owning or occupying commercial premises. Walker Morris’ specialist Real Estate Litigator David Manda explains and offers practical advice.
The lease/licence distinction…
If a person or business occupies premises, the freehold or superior interest of which is owned by somebody else: (a) for a term (that is, for a fixed period or for a period which can be ascertained by reference to a termination notice period); and (b) exclusively (that is, without interruption and with the ability to exclude the owner or any other party at any or at certain times) then, regardless as to how the occupation arrangement is named, documented or otherwise referred to, it will be a lease, as opposed to a mere licence.
The distinction is important for a number of reasons. In particular, a licence is simply a personal, contractual permission for the licensee to do something – in this context to occupy land. A licence does not confer any proprietorial rights, it cannot be assigned and it does not survive any change in the ownership of the freehold/superior interest. Crucially, a licence does not confer any security of tenure, and so a licensee’s position is precarious.
In contrast, a lease (or a tenancy, those terms are interchangeable) is much more than a contractual permission – it is an estate in land. A lease can therefore be bought and sold; it survives changes in ownership of any superior interests in the land; and, where it is a lease of commercial premises and the requirements of Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (the 1954 Act) are met, it affords the tenant security. That means that the tenant’s occupation cannot be brought to an end, even following expiry of the lease term, unless and until the landlord can establish (at court if necessary) one or more of certain limited statutory grounds for repossession.
…can be crucial – especially in the retail context
A misunderstanding on the part of the land owner or occupier as to the correct legal nature of any occupation of commercial premises can have devastating consequences.
A common scenario arises where a freehold owner wishes to recover possession of its premises quickly for a particular reason and believes that it can do so simply by giving a [short] period of notice as per the “licence” arrangement. Such plans can be scuppered entirely when it comes to light that the occupation arrangement is, in fact, a 1954 Act-protected lease which cannot be terminated without the owner giving a minimum of six months’ notice and being able to prove (if necessary at a full court trial which could take many months to prepare and to come to fruition) one of the statutory grounds. In some circumstances, even where a statutory ground is made out, the owner/landlord can also be liable to pay financial compensation to the protected occupier/tenant when the lease finally does come to an end.
From an occupier’s perspective, one of a business’ most valuable assets can be its goodwill which, more often than not, attaches to its premises and location. If an occupier is unexpectedly forced to depart, the disruption and damage to its business can be significant.
In the retail context, lease/licence confusion can arise in a variety of situations. Common areas of risk (non-exhaustively) include where retailers occupy premises and commence trading prior to completion of formal documentation; short-term, seasonal or pop-up arrangements; and space-sharing, concession or ‘sub-letting’ arrangements which are not properly documented.
Practical advice
In an uncertain climate, landlords can increasingly face void units – along with the rates and repair liability that that entails; and retailers can be reluctant to enter formal long-term leases. Financial pressures and the desire for flexibility therefore often prompt parties to enter informal occupation arrangements. If done properly, those solutions can represent a real win:win; but if not, the consequences can be devastating. When it comes to occupation arrangements, remember the adage ‘a stitch in time saves nine‘ and put the proper documentation in place.
For further information or advice, please do not hesitate to contact David Manda or any member of Walker Morris’ Real Estate Litigation or Retail teams.
_________
[1] [1985] 1 EGLR 128
[2] and usually at a rent, although this latter is not necessarily essential/determinative

ASA action
Recent action taken by the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority in […]
Recent action taken by the Committee of Advertising Practice and the Advertising Standards Authority in two key areas are likely to have a significant impact on retailers. Gwendoline Davies and Richard Naish explain.
Price promotion
In November 2017 a well-known supermarket ran a price promotion for Haagen-Dazs ice cream. The text of the promotion on their website stated “Only £3.00: Save £1.00”. The advertisement was challenged on the basis that it was misleading because the reduction didn’t represent a genuine saving.
The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) upheld the complaint. The ASA looked at the pricing history for the product and found that the price of the ice cream had fluctuated between a ‘base price’ of £4.00 and a ‘promo price’ of £3.00 every 21 days. Because the difference in price followed a cyclical pattern, the lower promotion price couldn’t be said to be a genuine saving against a usual selling price. Therefore the savings claim was deemed to be misleading and the supermarket was ordered to ensure that any future savings claims did not misleadingly imply savings against the usual selling price of the product.
This finding will have a big impact on food retail pricing practices. It is common practice for the major supermarkets to run promotions on a regular basis. It could be said that many food products do not have a usual selling price so claims of savings are now looking at risk of challenge.
Delivery charges
The Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has published a new enforcement notice on advertised delivery restrictions and surcharges which applies to all adverts across the UK, including advertisements on websites and on social media. The notice is designed to prevent misleading claims as to delivery charges – in particular claims such as “Free UK Delivery” where, for example, surcharges or restrictions may apply in certain parts of England, Scotland (including the Scottish Highlands), Wales and Northern Ireland.
The ASA has advised that sellers should not make absolute delivery claims which are incorrect; they should ensure that there are no contradictions of the main delivery claim; and, if any surcharges or restrictions are applicable, these must be “clear and upfront” within the advert.
Retailers who supply goods by post should review how their delivery arrangements and charges are advertised. The ASA has stated that enforcement action will be taken for non-compliance as from 31 May 2018.

The future of retail?
In May this year, James Crayton and Alan Harper attended the 140th Annual INTA Meeting […]
In May this year, James Crayton and Alan Harper attended the 140th Annual INTA Meeting in Seattle, USA. This is an annual conference for IP, trade marks and technology lawyers who attend from all over the world. Whilst in Seattle, James and Alan took a trip to the Amazon Go store and saw first-hand what the future of retail, and the high-street, may look like.
Amazon Go is a new kind of store where there is no checkout required. The store’s tag-line is “Just Walk Out Shopping” and all shoppers need to do is download the Amazon Go app, enter the store through barriers which operate much like a ticket barrier at a rail/tube station, take the products that they want and then simply walk out. There are no queues or checkouts involved. A shopper is allowed to take up to one guest with them.
To achieve this, the store uses facial recognition technology to identify a shopper and then detects when products are taken from or returned to shelves.
James testing whether he was charged for items which he took from the shelf and place back. (He is not trying to defeat the tech by wearing sunglasses!)
The shop itself is slightly larger than a traditional corner shop and has the feel of a small Tesco Express or Sainsbury’s Local. The items on offer are largely convenience-focused and there are a variety of ready meals, lunch options, snack and baked goods. There are also the usual kitchen essentials such as cheese, milk and bread. The store also sold ice cream and alcohol. The alcohol section of the store was staffed and Alan was asked for his ID when he went to see the craft beer on offer. This was one of only a couple of visible staff members.
Alan eyeing up the ice cream and beer on a rather hot day!
Visiting the Amazon Go store was an interesting experience and the store itself was very busy. It certainly felt like a glimpse of the future. However, at the moment it is difficult to see whether the technology applied in store could be easily applied to a traditional supermarket or other large store.
Once shoppers are finished, they simply walk. Shortly afterwards they receive a receipt via the app, which is then charged to their Amazon account.
James embracing “Just Walk Out Shopping” and then posing for a photo with his Amazon Go bag in front of the Amazon “Rainforest” Offices.
Although there is much to see and do in Seattle and this may not be a top tourist attraction, we would certainly recommend visiting the store if you are ever in the city. At present, there does not appear to be any plans to roll this format or technology out on a wider basis and no doubt this store is clearly an experiment. However, time will tell whether this is indeed what the future of retail and the high street may look like.

A European retail sector fit for the 21st century
The European Commission has published a set of best practices to provide guidance for member […]
The European Commission has published a set of best practices to provide guidance for member states in their efforts to create a more open, integrated and competitive retail market. Whatever the outcome of Brexit negotiations, the communication makes interesting and relevant reading for retailers with any pan-European presence.