Mail Boxes Etc. Remains Confident It Will Prevail in Court

Rich had a differant view pertaining to Summary Judgements back in November. How can it be that when UPS wins, the judge spoke about the merits of the case but when Big Brown loses, the decision pertains only to procedural matters. Also, how bad our the superior court judges in California. Mortimer was overturned on 3 separate occassions and Judge Quinn has been overturned once and soon to be a second time. California Superior Court Rules for Franchisor Mail Boxes Etc. Submitted by Don Sniegowski on Fri, 2007/11/02 - 21:24. In response to the court ruling, Rich Hallabrin, public relations spokesperson for Mail Boxes Etc., stated, "this is the first ruling we've had that speaks to the merits of the case and not to procedural matters." "This ruling substantiates what we've maintained all along - that the Gold Shield program (a project of converting MBE stores to The UPS Store) was legal and fell within our rights as the franchisor," he continued. Some of Judge Quinn's statements are listed below and can be read in full in the attachment, Summary Judgment, IAMCO vs Mail Boxes Etc. USA Inc. (5 pg pdf file). * "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach from failing to renew the franchise agreements on substantially similar terms or from requiring renewal as The UPS Store" * "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach regarding advertising." * "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach regarding support obligations to the franchisees." * "Plaintiffs cannot prove any breach of any contractual duty regarding their exclusive territories." * "Plaintiffs concede defendant James Amos is not a party to the franchise agreements." * "Plaintiffs concede defendant 'MBE, Inc. has in fact assumed the liabilities as the franchisor' thus plaintiffs have no basis to contend defendant UPS should be treated as having assumed those liabilities."