Kurtz Law Group logoFranchise First and Foremost
October 2013






Kurtz Law Group photo



On October 7, 2013, Woodbury University announced the appointment of Barry Kurtz as a member of its Board of Trustees. The University's Board of Trustees functions as the institution's primary governing body, overseeing policy, academics and appointments. Barry will serve for a minimum term of three years. 


Founded in 1884, Woodbury University, located in Burbank, California, is one of the oldest institutions of higher education in Southern California.  Woodbury offers bachelor's degrees from the School of Business, School of Media, School of Architecture and Institute of Transdisciplinary Studies, along with an MBA program and master degrees in Architecture and Organizational Leadership. Visit www.woodbury.edu for more information.


Kurtz Law Group's beer distribution law practice was featured in the September 30, 2013 issue of the San Fernando Valley Business Journal. To see the article, click here.


The firm now advises brewers, importers and distributors on beer distribution law as part of our 30+ year focus on franchise law. Our new website dedicated to beer distribution law, www.KurtzBeerLaw.com is now online.



In Sig, Inc. v. AT&T Digital Life, Inc., a federal district court in Miami held that the principal officers of a home and business security and electronics systems manufacturer were not liable to two terminated dealers under the Florida Sales of Business Opportunities Act, the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act or the Florida Franchise Act, but that the manufacturer could be held liable for these Florida statutory claims.


The dealers claimed that they were franchisees of the manufacturer, that the manufacturer and its principals were required to comply with the FTC franchise disclosure rule, but failed to do so, and that the principals had misrepresented the prospects of success of their dealership. The principals filed a motion to dismiss claiming the dealers failed to identify any intentional misrepresentations made by any of the principals.


Under applicable law, a corporate officer of a franchisor may not be held personally liable unless he personally participated in the fraud. The court found here that the dealers' complaint failed to state any facts demonstrating the principals' personal participation in an intentional misrepresentation regarding the likelihood of success of the dealerships and dismissed the Franchise Act claims against the principals.


The business opportunity and deceptive and unfair trade practices claims were based on the principals' failure to comply with the FTC franchise disclosure rule, their misrepresentations and nondisclosures about the dealership, and their alleged violations of the Florida franchise and business opportunity laws. The court again held that absent allegations that an individual was a direct participant in the improper dealings, the principals of the manufacturer could not be found liable for violating these statutes. To read the full case, click here.




A federal district court in Kansas City has ruled that a hotel franchisor was not entitled to the dismissal of a franchisee's claim for breach of contract based on the alleged failure of the franchisor's reservation system and the franchisor's failure to effectively market the franchisee's hotel.


The franchisee believed that the franchisor would design and provide a marketing program tailored to fit and drive demand to the hotel. But, according to the franchisee in 5 detailed pages of allegations it presented to the court, the franchisee's hotel was never visible on Internet searches for Kansas City hotels and the franchisor's Central Reservation Office failed to find and recommend the hotel to potential customers.


The franchisor argued that the franchisee did not identify specific contractual provisions it breached and asserted that it had no obligation to the franchisee with respect to its reservation system because the agreement made it clear that the franchisor "enjoys absolute and total discretion with regard to its control" over the reservation system. However, the agreement obligated the franchisee to pay monthly fees tied to the franchisor's marketing association and obligated the franchisor to afford the franchisee access to its reservation service for the hotel, which was paid for in part by the franchisee's mandatory services contribution fee. Since the franchisee's complaint listed a number of obligations that the franchisor had under the agreement and alleged that the franchisor breached those obligations, the court could not conclude, as a matter of law, that the agreement imposed no marketing or reservations obligations on the franchisor on its face. To read the full case, click here.

Newsletter Written/Edited by Barry Kurtz and Bryan H. Clements
This communication published by Kurtz Law Group is intended as general information and may not be relied upon as legal advice, which can only be given by a lawyer based upon all the relevant facts and circumstances of a particular situation.

Copyright  Kurtz Law Group 2013
All Rights Reserved.

In This Issue
Barry Kurtz Appointed To University Board of Trustees
Beer Distribution Law Practice Featured In San Fernando Valley Business Journal
Franchisor 101: Principals Not Liable Unless They Participate In Fraud
Franchisee 101: Failure Of Hotel Reservation System Claims Go Forward


Photo of Barry Kurtz
Barry Kurtz is a prolific writer on the subject of franchise law. From due diligence to franchise appraisal, his articles are a valuable resource to any franchisee and franchisor.  He has been named a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law by the State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization.

CA Bar Specialist Logo

Visit our website for more articles 
21650 Oxnard Street, Suite 500
Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: 818-827-9229

831 State Street, Suite 230 

Santa Barbara, California 93101

Telephone: (805) 965-9939