Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Court Watch
Preliminary Injunction Issued Against Franchisees That Disregarded Pricing Promotion
In a decision that demonstrates the ability of franchisors to enforce mandatory pricing promotions to maintain system-wide uniformity, two Denver Steak 'n Shake franchisees and affiliates were ordered to immediately cease operations after they failed to comply with national pricing and marketing policies. In Steak N. Shake Enterprises Inc. v. Globex Company, LLC, No. 13-cv-01751-RM-CBS (D. Colo. Sept. 3, 2013), the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted franchisor Steak 'n Shake's motion for a preliminary injunction against franchisees who continued to operate after Steak 'n Shake terminated their franchises for failing to comply with system-wide uniform pricing for its meals and menu items.
In 2012, the defendants opened two franchised Steak 'n Shake restaurants in Colorado with the obligation to open a third franchise by June 2, 2013. In the summer of 2013, Steak 'n Shake rolled out several new promotions, including a new $4 meal that was promoted on a special menu insert. The franchisor also provided its franchisees with new menus and marketing materials, which franchisees were required to institute. Shortly thereafter, Steak 'n Shake learned that the defendants had not implemented the $4 menu. Indeed, instead of charging customers the discounted meal price, the defendants charged customers ' la carte prices for each individual item, which totaled more than the meal price. In addition, the defendants altered the official menus provided by Steak 'n Shake to increase prices. After Steak 'n Shake remotely disabled the a la carte functionality in the franchisees' point-of-sale (POS) systems, defendants began using the official menus but still did not provide customers with the $4 meal menu inserts unless specifically requested by a customer. The defendants later claimed that they were forced to charge higher prices since the uniform pricing was unprofitable in certain areas, including Colorado. Although the franchisor gave the defendants an opportunity to cure the breach, they did not do so, and also failed to open the third restaurant in violation of the development agreement.
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.