Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the News
California Franchising Good-Faith Legislation Moves Forward
A bill has advanced in the California Assembly that, if ultimately passed, will enhance franchisee rights in that state. SB 610, which was introduced by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Dist 19), was approved by the Senate last year. It aims to enhance the right of franchisees to participate in associations, to regulate the sale and transfer of franchises and to enforce the duties of good faith and fair dealing in franchising agreements.
When the Bill last year failed to gain the support it now appears to have, the International Franchise Association (IFA) issued a statement about SB 610's defeat, which stated, in part: “Lawmakers in California recognized the basic tenet of the franchise model is the contract, and both franchisees and franchisors need to work to adhere to the terms of the contract for the model to thrive. Franchising remains the most viable way to own and operate a small business for many Americans, and legislators didn't want to upset the apple cart to appease a few isolated grievances when there are processes already in place within those systems, and the courts, to address them.” See, “California Legislature Rejects Attempt to Undermine Franchise Contracts.”'
Others are on board with the proposed legislation. For instance, The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD), a California-based trade association for franchisees, issued a statement in June explaining its support. It states, in part: “Modern franchise relationships are most always governed by one-sided 'take it or leave it' adhesion contracts that elicit substantial monetary investment from franchise owners, but severely limit a franchisees rights in the franchise relationship. For franchisees, the franchise relationship is almost always a 'bet the farm' transaction whereby most franchise owners place their business and financial futures on the line in reliance on the strength of a brand and a franchisor's promise of substantial support.”
California Franchising Good-Faith Legislation Moves Forward
A bill has advanced in the California Assembly that, if ultimately passed, will enhance franchisee rights in that state. SB 610, which was introduced by Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson (D-Dist 19), was approved by the Senate last year. It aims to enhance the right of franchisees to participate in associations, to regulate the sale and transfer of franchises and to enforce the duties of good faith and fair dealing in franchising agreements.
When the Bill last year failed to gain the support it now appears to have, the International Franchise Association (IFA) issued a statement about SB 610's defeat, which stated, in part: “Lawmakers in California recognized the basic tenet of the franchise model is the contract, and both franchisees and franchisors need to work to adhere to the terms of the contract for the model to thrive. Franchising remains the most viable way to own and operate a small business for many Americans, and legislators didn't want to upset the apple cart to appease a few isolated grievances when there are processes already in place within those systems, and the courts, to address them.” See, “California Legislature Rejects Attempt to Undermine Franchise Contracts.”'
Others are on board with the proposed legislation. For instance, The American Association of Franchisees and Dealers (AAFD), a California-based trade association for franchisees, issued a statement in June explaining its support. It states, in part: “Modern franchise relationships are most always governed by one-sided 'take it or leave it' adhesion contracts that elicit substantial monetary investment from franchise owners, but severely limit a franchisees rights in the franchise relationship. For franchisees, the franchise relationship is almost always a 'bet the farm' transaction whereby most franchise owners place their business and financial futures on the line in reliance on the strength of a brand and a franchisor's promise of substantial support.”
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.
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.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
The Cost of Making Partner
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.