Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Franchising: Once You Start, Can You Stop?
If a company ceases to expand its brand and market penetration through the sale of franchises as part of a plan to convert to an employee-based operation, is it exposed to liability for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing? The answer is yes, according to one California appellate court. In Sherman v. Master Protection Corp., 2002 WL 31854905 (Cal. App. 6 Dist. Dec. 18, 2002)(rev. den. April 9, 2003) [Business Franchise Guide (CCH) '12,503], a non-published decision, a unanimous three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District recently awarded damages and legal fees to a franchisee on that very basis.
In Sherman, the defendant, Master Protection Corporation (MPC), used the brand name 'FireMaster' to market and service fire protection equipment. The plaintiff, Michael Sherman, purchased franchises from MPC in 1987 and 1991 for the sums of $40,000 and $60,000, respectively. He paid nothing down; the purchase price for each franchise was set by the franchisor and based on the gross sales for the previous year; the entire price was paid for by promissory notes of Sherman to MPC.
Each franchise agreement recited that Sherman had the right to sell or assign it rights under the agreement subject to a right of first refusal in favor of MPC, and if not exercised, to a buyer approved by MPC. The franchisee was required to meet annual increasing sales targets. Because the purchase price of MPC franchises was tied to sales, their value thus increased as sales rose. When Sherman purchased his franchises, 100 percent of the sales of FireMaster were through MPC franchises.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?