News & Analysis as of

Franchise Agreements Unenforceable Contract Terms

Lathrop GPM

Citing California Franchise Relations Act, California Federal Court Rejects Franchisor’s Attempt to Dismiss Case

Lathrop GPM on

A federal court in California recently denied a franchisor’s motion to dismiss litigation, holding that a franchise agreement provision requiring the parties to mediate in Texas prior to instituting litigation or arbitration...more

Lathrop GPM

California Federal Court Concludes California Franchise Relations Act Applies to Termination of Operator Agreement

Lathrop GPM on

A federal court in California denied a subfranchisor’s motion to transfer venue, holding that its Operator Agreement constituted a franchise agreement, thus making its forum-selection clause void under the California...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisee 101: Great Lakes Forum Selection Dispute

Lewitt Hackman on

A federal appellate court declined to enforce a choice-of-forum clause finding enforcement would conflict with Michigan’s Franchise Investment Law (“MFIL”). Lakeside Surfaces, Inc., a maker of stone countertops, sued...more

Lathrop GPM

The Franchise Memorandum - Issue #271

Lathrop GPM on

Ninth Circuit Reverses Class Action Settlement Approval and Fee Award - The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed the approval of a $10 million voucher settlement and a $2.6 million attorneys’ fee award in a class...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisee 101: A Franchisor Without Urgency

Lewitt Hackman on

A federal court in Alabama denied an urgent care franchisee’s motion to dismiss a suit brought by its franchisor. The franchisee argued the franchise agreement required suits to be brought within a one-year period. But the...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisor 101: Forum Selection Clause Gone Wrong

Lewitt Hackman on

A California Court of Appeal held that courts should not enforce forum selection clauses in contracts that also contain a jury waiver. For franchisors that have California franchisees, this ruling could complicate the ability...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisor 101: Don’t Interfere With Beer

Lewitt Hackman on

The Mississippi Supreme Court ruled that a beer manufacturer’s “match and redirect” provision in an agreement with a wholesaler violated the state’s Beer Industry Fair Dealing Act (BIFDA). Anheuser-Busch’s contract said if...more

Lewitt Hackman

Franchisee 101: No Gain from Gratuitous Promises

Lewitt Hackman on

A federal Appeals Court has held that an offer to extend a franchisee’s buyback period lacked consideration required to form an enforceable contract and, instead, was an unenforceable gratuitous promise by the franchisor....more

8 Results
 / 
View per page
Page: of 1

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
- hide
- hide