Pantera's is a chain of "caf-style" restaurants. It enters into a contract with Shopping Center to put a Pantera caf in the center. As part of the negotiations, Pantera's insists that it wants to limit competition within the center. The Center has other tenants, however, who also serve food. After negotiation, the parties agree to the following language:

Center agrees not to enter into a lease, occupancy agreement or license affecting space in the Shopping Center or consent to an amendment to an existing lease permitting use . . . for a bakery or restaurant reasonably expected to have annual sales of sandwiches greater than ten percent (10%) of its total sales or primarily for the sale of high quality coffees or teas, such as, but not limited to, Starbucks, Tea-Luxe, Pete's Coffee and Tea, and Finagle a Bagle. The foregoing shall not apply to (i) a business serving near-Eastern food and related products, (ii) restaurants primarily for sit-down table service, (iii) a KFC restaurant, and (iv) a Papa Gino's restaurant (provided the same continues to operate with substantially the same categories of menu items as now apply to its stores and franchisees generally).

The parties sign the contract, the Pantera caf opens, and it becomes successful. Subsequently, Shopping Center is approached by Adoba, a national chain of "Mexican Grills" that serve various items in a caf-style setting that does not involve sit-down table service. On learning of these discussions, Panera's protests, claiming that burritos, tacos, and quesadillas are "sandwiches" and that they account for more than 10 percent of Adoba's sales. Pantera's sues, asking for an injunction against its claimed violation of the lease. What result and why?