FRANCHISE TRENDS

 










Join Our Mailing List

POST-TERMINATION PROVISION BARS FRANCHISEE'S FAMILY

VERLO MATTRESS FACTORY STORES, LLC V. MATTRESS CRAFTERS CORP. (2009) -- Following termination by the franchisor, the franchisee closed its three stores and subsequently reopened one of them as a competing mattress store under a name similar to the franchisor's brand. The principal of the franchisee also attempted a transfer of the reopened store to her children, who had no experience in selling mattresses. The franchisor had a strong likelihood of showing that the attempted transfer of the store was a sham transfer. The noncompete provision prohibited the franchisee as well as its owners from having any interest, direct or indirect, in any store or business within 50 miles of the franchises operated by the franchisee for a period of two years following the termination of the franchise by either party


Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact

FRANCHISOR'S AGREEMENT TO FORBEARANCE AGREEMENT DID NOT LIMIT ITS SUBSEQUENT DEMAND FOR DISSOLUTION OF FRANCHISEE

WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. v. SAVERIN (July 9, 2009) -- Under Ohio law, fast-food restaurant franchisor did not breach its implied duty of good faith and fair dealing under forbearance agreement when it failed to oppose a receivership for franchisee, upon franchisee's default on its loan payment obligations, which triggered franchisor's right to terminate franchise agreements under forbearance agreement. Franchisor did what it was explicitly permitted to do under the forbearance agreement, so that its actions could not constitute breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and there was no showing that franchisor's conduct in not opposing the receivership could not have been contemplated at the time the parties negotiated the forbearance agreement.

Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact

Complimentary Legal Consultation

Initial Complimentary Consultation Available. Please click the link to our website below and fill out the questionnaire. We will respond to you within one business day to schedule a conference call to discuss your concerns. Please use the provided space to explain your issue or concern.

www.goldlawgroup.com [email protected]

Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact





Join Our Mailing List
GOLDSTEIN LAW GROUP, PC 
JEFFREY M. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ.
www.goldlawgroup.com
202-293-3947


chess

FRANCHISEE'S DISHONESTY SUPPORTS TERMINATION

ROA v. BP PRODUCTS NORTH AMERICA, INC. ( Dec. 9, 2009) - Franchisor had shown that it had grounds under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act for early termination of franchisee given that franchisee engaged in fraud by paying franchisor's sales manager hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash and gifts to influence award of gas stations to him, secretly appointing representative for franchisor a partner in a gas station while she was an employee prohibited from having such an interest, selling his interest in the station to the representative after she stopped working for franchisor, and submitted a false letter of intent that inflated purchase price to deter franchisor from exercising its right of first refusal.

Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact

FRANCHISOR'S INTERNET
ENCROACHMENT LAWFUL

STILLWELL v. RADIOSHACK CORPORATION (Nov. 2, 2009) -- Under Texas law, franchisor's website was not an "Authorized Sales Center" which franchisor was prohibited from establishing within franchisees' areas of primary responsibility (AORs) under franchise agreements, and franchisor thus did not breach agreements by making direct internet sales to customers who resided in franchisees' AORs. The AOR restrictions did not facially prohibit internet sales. Although restrictions demonstrated parties' intent to provide some protection to franchisees from direct competition with brick-and-mortar franchisor-owned stores, it could not have been intended that franchisees would be protected from internet competition since the internet had not existed at time agreements were executed; moreover, the franchise agreements did not prohibit franchisor's making direct sales via mail order and telephone.

 

FRANCHISOR'S CONTINUED SUPPLY TO FRANCHISEE AFTER TERMINATION DID NOT WAIVE FINAL TERMINATION

TGI FRIDAY'S INC. v. GREAT NORTHWEST RESTAURANTS, INC. (Aug. 20, 2009) -- Even assuming that restaurant franchisor's mistakes regarding choice of food distribution system led to franchisees' default under franchise agreement, for failing to make requisite royalty payments, franchisees were not excused from performing under franchise agreement, and thus franchisor's termination of agreements was not improper under Texas law. Restaurant franchisor's "forgiving" conduct toward franchisees, by continuing to inspect restaurants, sending them menus and other promotional materials, and continuing to list the restaurant locations on its website, did not waive its termination of the franchise agreements.


Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact

HOTEL FRANCHISOR ESCAPES FRAUD CLAIM FOR DISCONTINUED HOTEL BRAND

LAKE WRIGHT HOSPITALITY, LLC HOLIDAY HOSPITALITY FRANCHISING, INC. (Aug. 20, 2009) -- A hotel franchiser did not fraudulently induce a franchisee to open a hotel under a brand name that was eventually discontinued. At the core of plaintiff's case lies its theory that defendants duped plaintiff in late 2000 into opening its hotel under the Holiday Inn Select ("HISL") brand name, even though defendants had already secretly decided in 1998 or 1999 to "kill" the brand. Plaintiff claims that defendants then strung it and other HISL franchisees along for years, until defendants officially decided in March 2006 to cease sales of new HISL franchises, in order to take advantage of the positive "halo" effect that HISL's premium reputation had on consumer perceptions of defendants' core Holiday Inn brand. Plaintiff claims that this was done at the expense of HISL franchisees, who were unaware that defendants had no long-term interest in establishing HISL as a profitable, self-sustaining brand within the Holiday Inn family. The franchisee alleged that the franchisor knew that the brand name would be discontinued when it induced the franchisee to rebrand its hotel, but the evidence indicated that the brand was discontinued several years later when it failed to attract enough franchisees for long term viability.


Home | About Us | Consultation | State Franchise Laws | Blog | Guest Columns | Press Releases | FAQ | Contact

Thanks for your interest in our Newsletter, and we look forward to answering any questions you might have either on the cases discussed in this issue of Franchise Trends, or on general trends in franchise law.
 
NEW ARTICLE:
 
FRANCHSIE RENEWALS: THEY'VE GOT YOU COMING AND GOING
 
www.goldlawgroup.com
Jeff Goldstein

Goldstein Law Group                                           
 
 
Send to a Colleague              FORWARD EMAIL TO COLLEAGUE

GOLDSTEIN, P.O. Box 1707, Leesburg, VA 20177 MAIN: 202-293-3947 FAX: 202-315-2514
© 2010 Goldstein Counselors At Law

This newsletter is advertising material and is not intended to be legal advice of any nature. In order to protect any rights you might have, you should promptly retain an attorney.