The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Sep 29, 2016

The Predictably Unpredictable Legal Morass of Franchise Termination Damages

In franchise and antitrust distribution law there is no more exasperating, elusive and esoteric issue than damages. This analytical muddle threatens franchisors and franchisees alike. Further, the doctrinal failure regarding franchise damages is so robust that it has extensively infected damages theory, methodology, and calculation.

Do You Have a Claim Against Your Franchisor?

As a franchisee, there are few things worse than coming to the realization that you may need to sue your franchisor.

Pitfalls of Signing a Franchise Agreement without Legal Representation

When evaluating a new franchise opportunity, there are plenty of considerations to keep in mind. What is the best location? Will you need to hire employees? If so, how can you find people you can trust? How and when will you roll out your initial advertising campaign?

Suing Your Franchisor? But What Does Your Franchise Agreement Say?

Most franchise agreements contain several provisions relating to dispute resolution; and, as you might expect, most of these provisions are designed to be franchisor-friendly.

Ten Worst Provisions in a Franchise Contract

If you are in the process of performing your due diligence on a franchise opportunity, you are probably struggling to comprehend the seemingly-unending legalese in the franchise agreement. Indeed, even the best franchise lawyer struggles to interpret what the drafters intended when they wrote some of the language in many of these agreement templates that, frankly, should have been overhauled long, long ago.

Exxon's Zone Pricing Exerts Too Much Control over Franchisees

A recent case decided by the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey may breathe new life into the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. South Gas, Inc. v. Exxonmobil Oil Corp., 2016 WL 816748 (D.N.J. February 29, 2016).

Lots of Meat Left on the Bone for Franchisees & Franchise Lawyers

During my preparation of an analysis of a very recent New Jersey federal court decision involving a gasoline franchise dispute (South Gas v. ExxonMobil,  2016), I was sidetracked by a fourteen year-old franchise decision by the same court -- Beilowitz v. General Motors Corp., 233 F. Supp.2d 631 (D.N.J. 2002).

Chicken Little and the NLRB: Franchisor Joint-Employers Are Falling Everywhere

Like the plummeting acorn that caused Chicken Little to conclude that the sky is falling, the recent NLRB Browning-Ferris decision (“NLRB decision”) has triggered franchisors, and some of their franchisees, to publicly and loudly proclaim that “franchising is doomed.” This forewarning is at best a great miscalculation, and at worst an intentional exaggeration.

Terminated Franchisee Beats the Odds, Sidesteps Injunction

In a recent decision by the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, the Court denied the plaintiff franchisor’s motion for a preliminary injunction, showing that, in rare situations, it is possible for a terminated franchisee to escape the lethal injunctive pincers of the Lanham Act, the federal law that is frequently relied upon by franchisors to shut down a franchisee’s operations during termination disputes.

In Minnesota It Takes the Wizard of Oz to Prove Franchisor Fraud

The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota on January 12, 2016, in Moxie Venture L.L.C., et al. v. The UPS Store, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3603, hammered the final nail in the coffin of franchisee fraud claims under the Minnesota Franchise Act.