Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
News Briefs
Canada Makes Progress on Uniform Franchise Law
The Franchise Law Committee of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (“ULCC”) has completed its report on the proposed Uniform Franchises Act and Regulations. The report and its recommendations, along with the draft Uniform Franchises Act and Regulations, will be considered by the ULCC at its annual meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, Aug. 21-25, 2005.
If the proposed Act and Regulations are approved, the ULCC will circulate the material to the provinces and territories with its recommendation that the legislation be adopted.
The report will soon be posted on the ULCC's Web site at www.ulcc.ca. Information about how to submit comments prior to the ULCC's annual meeting also will be posted.
Update: Blockbuster to Pay Fine, Change Advertising
Video and DVD store franchisor Blockbuster has agreed to change its “No Late Fees” advertising campaign that was started on Jan. 1, 2005, after attorneys general in several states alleged that the ads were deceptive. Under an agreement with 47 states and the District of Columbia, Blockbuster has agreed to pay $630,000 to individual states to settle claims. The company also will provide refunds to consumers who claim the campaign misled them into thinking they could keep videos or DVDs for as long as they liked.
The attorneys general said that Blockbuster did not make it clear to consumers that a film returned more than a week overdue would be subject to a “restocking fee” of $1.25 per video or DVD. Under some circumstances, customers were charged the full purchase price of the film or game they had rented.
New Jersey, which was the first state to sue Blockbuster about the No Late Fees policy (see FBLA, April 2004), is one of three states that declined to join the settlement (along with New Hampshire and Vermont). Blockbuster said that some of the problem in New Jersey came from how franchisees explained the new policy or if the franchisee even chose to adopt the No Late Fees marketing program.
Update: Mack Trucks, Franchisee Will Be in Court in Summer
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss claims against truck manufacturer Mack Trucks (Allentown, PA) by franchisee Toledo Mack Sales & Service (Toledo, OH). The case will likely go to trial this summer in Philadelphia.
As reported in FBLA in Nov. 2004, Toledo Mack alleges violations of prohibitions on direct sales of vehicles and discriminatory pricing. Dealers in Detroit and Tampa, FL have filed similar lawsuits. According to Wayne Mack (no relation to Mack Trucks or Toledo Mack), a partner with Duane Morris LLP (Philadelphia), who is representing Toledo Mack, the lawsuits illustrate how franchisees and dealerships are challenging the rights of manufacturers to compete directly against them for business.
Senior U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter allowed counterclaims by Mack for misappropriation of confidential information, breach of contract, and copyright infringement. However, Buckwalter did not allow Mack to terminate the Toledo Mack franchisee, which it has been blocked from doing by an Aug. 2004 ruling by the Ohio Motor Vehicle Dealers Licensing Board.
Canada Makes Progress on Uniform Franchise Law
The Franchise Law Committee of the Uniform Law Conference of Canada (“ULCC”) has completed its report on the proposed Uniform Franchises Act and Regulations. The report and its recommendations, along with the draft Uniform Franchises Act and Regulations, will be considered by the ULCC at its annual meeting in St. John's, Newfoundland, Aug. 21-25, 2005.
If the proposed Act and Regulations are approved, the ULCC will circulate the material to the provinces and territories with its recommendation that the legislation be adopted.
The report will soon be posted on the ULCC's Web site at www.ulcc.ca. Information about how to submit comments prior to the ULCC's annual meeting also will be posted.
Update: Blockbuster to Pay Fine, Change Advertising
Video and DVD store franchisor Blockbuster has agreed to change its “No Late Fees” advertising campaign that was started on Jan. 1, 2005, after attorneys general in several states alleged that the ads were deceptive. Under an agreement with 47 states and the District of Columbia, Blockbuster has agreed to pay $630,000 to individual states to settle claims. The company also will provide refunds to consumers who claim the campaign misled them into thinking they could keep videos or DVDs for as long as they liked.
The attorneys general said that Blockbuster did not make it clear to consumers that a film returned more than a week overdue would be subject to a “restocking fee” of $1.25 per video or DVD. Under some circumstances, customers were charged the full purchase price of the film or game they had rented.
New Jersey, which was the first state to sue Blockbuster about the No Late Fees policy (see FBLA, April 2004), is one of three states that declined to join the settlement (along with New Hampshire and Vermont). Blockbuster said that some of the problem in New Jersey came from how franchisees explained the new policy or if the franchisee even chose to adopt the No Late Fees marketing program.
Update: Mack Trucks, Franchisee Will Be in Court in Summer
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss claims against truck manufacturer Mack Trucks (Allentown, PA) by franchisee Toledo Mack Sales & Service (Toledo, OH). The case will likely go to trial this summer in Philadelphia.
As reported in FBLA in Nov. 2004, Toledo Mack alleges violations of prohibitions on direct sales of vehicles and discriminatory pricing. Dealers in Detroit and Tampa, FL have filed similar lawsuits. According to Wayne Mack (no relation to Mack Trucks or Toledo Mack), a partner with
Senior U.S. District Judge
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.
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.