Kramer & Kaslow


C A L A B A S A S

23901 Calabasas Road
Suite 2013
Calabasas, California 91302
Phone: (818) 224-3900
Fax: (818) 224-3911

Home Page

Firm Resume

Attorneys

Franchise Articles

Internet Law

Entertainment Law

Legal Links



Philip A. Kramer

Thank you for your patience while we update our site!

 

INDEX OF RECENT ARTICLES
 

Franchise Law

August 2003

WHO “SLIPPED UP” AT WAL-MART?

by Philip A. Kramer

Wal-Mart=s store in Ceres, California, leases space to a McDonald=s franchise. A sign posted by McDonald=s asks customers to enjoy their food and drink inside the restaurant. Approximately once an hour, Wal-Mart makes a similar request through an announcement over the store=s intercom system. Nevertheless, customers regularly consume food and beverages without interference while they browse and shop..  Full Story

 

 

Franchise Law

July 2003

WHAT IF I ARBITRATE? AND LOSE! THEN I’M ASSESSED $1.7 MILLION ATTORNEY’S FEES! WHAT IF I APPEAL?
by Kathleen A. Paul

For over ten years, from 1992 until just this month, motorcycle giant Kawasaki and one of its St. Louis-area dealerships, Bob Shultz Motors, went round and round over Kawasaki=s refusal to allow Schultz Motors to acquire a third dealership in that area.  It started when Schultz brought suit in Missouri state court alleging, inter alia, that Kawasaki wrongfully refused..  Full Story

 

 

Franchise Law

June 2003

FRANCHISEE NOT BOUND BY FRANCHISOR’S “SATISFACTION GUARANTEE”

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

The franchisees of two hotels were not contractually bound to comply with the A100% Satisfaction Guarantee@ program that was implemented by the company that acquired the rights to their franchise agreements from their former franchisor..  Full Story

 

Franchise Law

May 2003

FRANCHISEE WOULD RATHER FIGHT THAN SETTLE

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Defendant Tat-Mau Wong, a Kung-Fu expert, is the president and sole owner of the common stock of two California corporations, Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu Institute, Inc. and Champion Arts, Inc,. Choy Lay Institute operated three Kung-Fu academies, including an academy in Concord, California. Champion Arts was formed to franchise Kung-Fu Academies under the trade name ATat Wong Kung Fu Academies@..  Full Story

 

Franchise Law

April 2003

”LIKE THE OLD SONG SAYS.. PLEASE COME TO BOSTON..”

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

On August 24, 1998, Connie Nagrampa entered into an agreement with the defendant to establish a mail advertising franchise under the auspices of MailCoups. Nagrampa claims to have been promised income of over $100,000 a year and 41% profit as a franchisee, but the reality was starkly different. Rather than making a substantial profit, Nagrampa made no income and incurred substantial debt, despite working long hours.. Full Story

 

Franchise Law

March 2003

IF HE’D JUST CLEANED HIS STORE, INSTEAD OF HIS MONEY, HE MIGHT STILL BE “DUNKIN’ DONUTS”

by Kathleen A. Paul

Can criminal testimony that has been sealed by court order be opened for civil proceedings?

 

A man who was a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee in New York State participated in a proffer session in August 1999 with the United States Attorney’s Office in Tucson, Arizona, in which he agreed to discuss “matters of interest” to the United States Attorney in exchange for a promise by the government that the information would not be used against him in “any other proceeding”. Thereafter, the man made incriminating statements to Assistant United States Attorney Ausa Huellmantel…Full Story

 

 

 

Franchise Law

February 2003

 

BASKIN ROBBINS FRANCHISEES ALL SCREAM
by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

In an action by a group of more than forty Baskin-Robbins franchisees against their franchisor, the franchisees sued Baskin-Robbins, USA, Co. on the news that Baskin-Robbins decided not to renew their franchise agreements and that Baskin Robbins supposedly mishandled funds in a common advertising fund. The other significant complaint that the franchisees asserted were that Baskin Robbins prevented the franchisees from selling their franchises to third parties by informing them that they would not be renewed... Full Story

 

Franchise Law

January 2003

McLAWSUIT DISMISSED!

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

A lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of American teenagers who claim the fast food chain McDonald=s is responsible for their obesity and health problems has been thrown out of court by a U. S. District Court Judge.  The Judge found that the allegations in the complaint were not specific enough, but the Court allowed the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to try to cure the deficiencies.

The lawsuit, filed by the parents of two girls, claimed that McDonald=s failed to disclose clearly and conspicuously the ingredients and effects of its food, much of which is high in fat, salt, sugar and cholesterol.. Full Story

 

Franchise Law

December 2002

FRANCHISEE FORCED TO ARBITRATE “VOIDABLE” CONTRACT

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

In May, 2000, respondents Bill and Casey Tipton signed a licensing agreement with petitioner Solar Planet and entered the tanning salon business. Under the agreement, the Tiptons were allowed to use Solar Planet’s name and logo on their salon. They also received both training and business advice for Solar Planet. In addition, they were to receive the exclusive right, within the city of Walnut Creek, California, to use a certain brand of German manufactured tanning beds..  Full Story

 

Franchise Law

October 2002

FRANCHISEES SUE AFTER SIGNING GENERAL RELEASE

by Kathleen A. Paul

Franchisees Kevin and Jennifer Lee had operated a “Great Earth” vitamin store at Los Angeles’s Westside Pavilion for 16 years. Then, in 1990, they opened a GNC (“General Nutrition Companies”) store at the same locations. Business was going well. So, in May 1991, the Lees opened a second GNC store at Southern California’s Galleria at South Bay.

 

Their stores prospered, with the Westside Store receiving the “Million Dollar Store” award in 1997 and the South Bay store winning an “Operator of the Year” award in 1998. But sales started declining toward the end of 1998, according to the Lees, because franchisor GNC had launched what the Lees described as an “unlawful scheme” to drive the GNC franchisees out of business.. Full Story

 

Franchise Law

September 2002

COURT DEALS FRANCHISEE A DIAMOND FLUSH

by James D. Henderson, Jr., Esq.

 

On August 27, 1997, the South Dakota Division of Securities notified Nature’s 10 and its officers that Nature’s 10 franchise registration had expired. Then, on October 1, 1997, the Division withdrew the company’s registration number effective July 29, 1997. Nature’s 10 was warned that the company “will no longer be engaged in the offer or sale of franchises in South Dakota.”

Sam Savage (Savage), a Florida resident, had previously been in the jewelry business and was interested in operating a jewelry franchise store. Savage negotiated with Nature’s 10 and signed a franchise agreement with the company on December 19, 1997—more than four months after Nature’s 10 was no longer authorized to sell franchises. Full Story

Franchise Law

August 2002

CHICAGO, YOU SAY! BUT WHAT’LL I WEAR?

by Kathleen A. Paul

Bill and Pamela Ludwig, owners of L&H Tuxes, Inc. didn’t want to arbitrate in the first place. And in the second place, as California franchisees and developers, they thought they were protected by California law from having to arbitrate in Chicago, near where their franchisor, Gingiss International, Inc., franchisor of Gingiss Formalwear Centers, is located. But U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, decided otherwise in a decision handed down July 11th. Full Story

Franchise Law

July 2002

NEXT ROUND’S ON PABST SAYS COURT OF APPEALS

by Kathleen A. Paul

Pabst Brewing Company could probably use one of its cold ones right now as it suffers from a severe sales drought in its southeast region—and the heat brought on by a decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Apparently the Federal Court of Appeals didn’t take kindly to Pabst’s claim that it was justified in terminating a contract with its southeast distributor for selling non-Pabst products on the side, and now Pabst has to pay damages for “wrongful termination.” Full Story

Franchise Law

June 2002

FRANCHISEE AVOIDS GETTING HIT WITH A WHOPPER

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Hinton, Inc. operated eighteen Burger King restaurants, all located in South Carolina. Burger King Corporation (“BKC”) and Hinton entered into eighteen separate Franchise Agreements and eight Lease agreements concerning these franchise restaurants. Hinton failed to pay royalties, advertising, investment spending, rent, property taxes, and other expenses due under the Franchise Agreements and Leases. After providing notice of default and the opportunity to cure such default, BKC terminated the relationship, terminated the franchised businesses and sued Hinton for damages. The lawsuit was brought in Federal Court in Miami, Florida. Hinton “justified” its failure to make payments as required under the Franchise Agreements and Leases with the defense that BKC prevented it from complying with its contractual obligations through three different actions and omissions. Full Story

Franchise Law

May 2002

FRANCHISEE’S INJURED EMPLOYEE AVOIDS GETTING “SHELLED”

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Mohammed Khan was shot during an armed robbery at the Shell service station where he worked. Khan sued Shell to recover damages for his injuries on a theory of negligence based on the three elements of negligence: 1) a legal duty owed by one person to another; 2) a breach of that duty; and 3) damages proximately resulting from the breach. Shell countered with a motion for summary judgment on the ground that it owed no duty to Khan. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Shell, from which Khan appealed. Full Story

Franchise Law

April 2002

FRANCHISOR WINS JURISDICTION & VENUE, BUT LOSES THE INJUNCTION OVER “BALANCE OF HARMS”

by Kathleen A. Paul

Grow Biz International, Inc. (Grow Biz), known to its fans through its d.b.a., “Play It Again Sports” (PIAS), appeared to be winning at U.S. District Court, Minnesota, in an injunctive action against a franchisee over an alleged violation of a non-competition clause. But when it came to the question of which entity—the franchisor or the franchisee—stood to suffer the most harm, depending on the outcome, the Court’s call was franchisee. Full Story

Franchise Law

March 2002

INJUNCTION ENFORCES POST-TERM COVENANT NOT TO COMPETE

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

ServiceMaster entered into a franchise agreement with DLK&P in Nebraska. The Franchise Agreement provided that Tennessee law would apply to the interpretation of the agreement and also included a "Post-Term Covenant Not to Compete." In less than two years, ServiceMaster, gave DLK&P written Notice of Intent to terminate the franchise for payment defaults by DLK&P. Thereafter DLK&P's principal filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code and the assets of DLK&P became part of his bankruptcy estate. Kenneth Proctor sought to purchase the assets of DLK&P from his father's bankruptcy estate. ServiceMaster's attorneys, advised Kenneth that he could not use the assets of DLK&P to operate a competitive business in Lancaster County for one year after termination. Nevertheless, Kenneth went on to privately negotiate the sale of DLK&P's assets with the bankruptcy trustee and reopened the business as PROClean, Inc., with an office at the same location as the former DLK&P. Full Story

 

Franchise Law

February 2002

BURGER KING: "HAVE IT MY WAY"

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

H&H operated 29 Burger King restaurants in Texas. After successfully negotiating the sale of all 29 restaurants to the Olajuwon Group, Burger King refused to approve the transfer. H&H filed suit alleging that Burger King interfered with its attempted. Burger King moved for summary judgment to establish its unilateral right to determine the suitability of any transfer.  Full Story

 

Franchise Law

January 2002

WHERE, OH WHERE MUST CALIFORNIA FRANCHISEES ARBITRATE THEIR DISPUTES?

by Kathleen A. Paul

As reported in prior LegaLetters, when California franchisees were compelled by provisions in their franchise agreements to arbitrate disputes with their franchisors, the arbitrations had to be held in California—even if the franchise agreements provided otherwise. But that was before the most recent turnaround ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, the law is unsettled. Full Story

 

Franchise Law

December 2001

FRANCHISEES ATTEMPT TO "BLOCK" TERMINATION

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

 

In a recent turn of events, a national tax preparation franchisor reversed its long standing policy of granting automatic renewals, and turned on a group of franchisees, asking a court to terminate "without cause" their franchise agreements. Full Story

Franchise Law

November 2001

FRANCHISOR NOT LIABLE FOR CUSTOMERS' ILLNESSES

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

A number of Schlotzsky's customers allegedly contracted Hepatitis.A from eating tainted food served at a location in Atlanta, Georgia. The restaurant in question was owned and operated by Tidwell Food Company, under a franchise agreement with Schlotzsky's. The affected customers sued both Schlotzsky's and Tidwell seeking compensation for their illnesses. A trial court's ruling held Schlotzsky's vicariously liable for its franchisee's negligence. And Schlotzsky's appealed.Full Story

Franchise Law

October 2001

McDONALD'S CANNOT DENY AGENCY RELATIONSHIP SOLELY ON FRANCHISE AGREEMENT

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

John and Corliss Butler brought an action on behalf of their minor child, Bryan A. Butler ("Butler"), for injuries he sustained as the result of the alleged negligence of McDonald's Corporation ("McDonald's"), its agents, servants, and/or employees in maintaining the premises of a franchised restaurant and in training and supervision of its agents, servants and/or employees.Full Story

Franchise Law

September 2001

ARBITRATION CLAUSE FOUND TO BE INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

A Hotel chain which had suspended a franchisee agreement filed a demand for arbitration of the dispute with its franchisee. After the franchisee obtained a temporary restraining order (TRO) in Montana state court prohibiting the chain from proceeding to arbitration, the chain removed action to federal court, and moved to dismiss, or alternatively to compel arbitration.Full Story

Franchise Law

August 2001

RITE AID AVOIDS BEING CAUGHT IN GNC "CROSS-FIRE"

by Kathleen A. Paul

This case involves a "Protected Territory" clause in which the plaintiffs, two New Jersey GNC stores and their owner/operator Mark Kazmierski, brought suit against their franchisor, General Nutrition Companies, Inc. ("GNC"), a nationwide specialty retailer of vitamins and other nutritional supplements. Kazmierski accused GNC of breaching its franchise agreements, fraud and — along with the drug store chain Rite Aid — tortiously interfering with his contractual relations and economic advantage by marketing GNC Brand vitamins in Rite Aid stores located in Kazmierski's Protected Territory.Full Story

Franchise Law

July 2001

COMPETE AGAINST CARVEL ICE CREAM? THE COURT SAYS "NEVER ON SUNDAE"

by Kathleen A. Paul

Here's another look at a "boiler-plate" non-competition clause. If you have one in your franchise agreement—and you're the franchisee—watch out (that is, if New York law applies). Of course, the enforceability of covenants not to compete depends on the terms of the restraint and the state law that governs the agreement. Full Story

Franchise Law

June 2001

ANOTHER EXCEPTIONAL VICTORY FOR JONES

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

In June 1998, Jones filed suit against his franchisor General Nutrition Centers (GNC). Before Jones' case could be heard on the merits, GNC appealed the preliminary issue of venue and jurisdiction. Ultimately Jones prevailed on the appeal. However, the appeal processes lasted 15 months and cost Jones over $30,000. Despite the fact that GNC had yet to answer the complaint, Jones asked the Court to award him his attorneys fees on the appeal. The Court agreed. Full Story

Franchise Law

May 2001

HOW ONE INCORRECT, BUT UNCONTESTED, LETTER DESTROYED A FRANCHISEE'S BUSINESS

by Kathleen A. Paul

Frank Lucente, Jr., had reason to be pleased, he had negotiated a 20-year franchise agreement with Ramada at a favorable 5.2% monthly royalty on gross room sales. This was a unique agreement for its time, when the typical Ramada franchisee was paying a 6.5% royalty fee. In fact, Sam Apostle, a Ramada negotiator, later stated that he could recall negotiating only one other--out of eight hundred license agreements--in a similar manner. Three years later Ramada unilaterilly began billing Lucente for a 7.5% royalty. Incredibly, Lucente did not object utill years later. Full Story

Franchise Law

April 2001

SUPREME COURT FORCES EMPLOYEE TO ARBITRATE

by Michelle N. Edwards

After signing a "standard" employment application, Mr. Saint Clair Adams was hired by Circuit City. Two years later, Adams sued Circuit City in state court for employment discrimination. Relying on the arbitration clause in the employment application, Circut City moved to end the state court action and compel arbitration. Adams appealed to the United States Supreme Court in an effort to keep his case in state court and fully avail himself of the protections offered by his state's anti-discrimination statutes.Full Story

Franchise Law

March 2001

ARBITRATION CLAUSE FORCED ON "MOM & POP" FRANCHISEE FOUND UNCONSCIONABLE

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

A recent California appellate court ruling confirms that unconscionable arbitration provisions in franchise agreements are not enforceable in California. However, courts will attempt to save such arbitration agreements by severing only those provisions which are unconscionable, and will order the parties to arbitrate under the terms of the modified agreement. Full Story

Franchise Law

February 2001

COURT FINDS $37 MILLION FRANCHISEE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT "FAIR AND REASONABLE"

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

A California appeals court upheld a $37 million nation-wide class action settlement between a convenience store franchisor and 5,454 of its current and former 7-Eleven franchisees, despite objections raised not by the franchisor, but by the franchisees' former attorneys. Full Story

Franchise Law

January 2001

WHAT HARM IS THERE IN BREAKING A LITTLE NONCOMPETITION COVENANT? READ ON AND WEEP FOR THIS FRANCHISEE

by Kathleen Paul

After three years as a franchisee of Medicap Pharmacy, Inc., an Owensboro Kentucky pharmacist and his wife decided to relinquish their MPI franchise, yet they continued to operate a retail pharmacy at the same location. A few weeks later, MPI was in U.S. District Court in Iowa seeking a preliminary injunction to prohibit the couple from breaching their noncompetition covenant. Full Story

Franchise Law

December 2000

FRANCHISEE TERMINATED FOR UNDER REPORTING

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

The Federal District Court in Los Angeles, California has found that a gasoline station franchisee's failure to provide the requested books and records to an independent auditor and under reporting of convenience store sales on state sales tax returns justified termination under the Federal Gasoline Dealer law.Full Story

Franchise Law

November 2000

FRANCHISEES DON'T "KNEAD" TO PUT UP WITH FRANCHISOR ABUSES

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission (Australia's counterpart to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission) accused the franchisor, Simply No-Knead of engaging in unconscionable acts and violations of the Australian franchising code. The investigation started after the franchisor insisted that franchisees adopt and pay for a questionable advertising campaign. Full Story

Franchise Law

October 2000

FRANCHISOR RESTRAINED FROM "CLEANING OUT" PROSPECTS

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Just when unethical franchisors thought that it was safe to cheat prospective franchisees, the Federal Trade Commission has appeared to save the day and prosecute a case against an unscrupulous franchisor in federal court. The FTC has convinced a federal judge to make the franchisor, Wash Guy.com, Inc., and its principals, stop doing business. The judge has also temporarily frozen all of their assets. Full Story

Franchise Law

September 2000

DISTRIBUTOR UNSUCCESSFULLY ATTEMPTS TO EXPAND JONES VICTORY

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

In a recent federal case, a California plaintiff attempted to be classified as a franchisee in order to invoke the protections enumerated in the Jones v. GNC case. The court, however, in Bestest International, Inc. v. Futrex, Inc. determined that the distributor was not a franchisee and was not entitled to the protections afforded by the California Franchise Investment Law ("CFIL"). Full Story

Franchise Law

August 2000

COUSINS LITIGATE OVER A SUB-SHOP EXPANSION

by Thomas K. Agawa, Esq.

Even if made with the best intentions, Courts will refuse to enforce non-competition agreements if they pose an unreasonable restraint on trade and are injurious to the public. In Liautaud v. Liautaud the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit refused to enforce a non-competition agreement entered into between competing operators of a chain of franchised restaurants. Full Story

Franchise Law

July 2000

LITTLE CAESAR'S DELIVERS LITIGATION - AGAIN

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

This month we examine another franchise dispute between a California franchisee and Little Caesar's. In this case, the franchisor brought suit in Federal Court in Michigan against a California based franchisee after the franchisee closed four unprofitable Little Caesar's restaurants located in South Dakota. The franchisee brought a counterclaim alleging that it had relied on fraudulent economic information provided by Little Caesar's real estate manager and that the sale violated South Dakota's franchise investment laws. Full Story

Franchise Law

June 2000

PIZZA FRANCHISEE LOSES OUT ON DOUGH

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Mr. Cook filed a lawsuit against Little Caesars Enterprises in Federal Court in Michigan. Although he was a California franchisee with restaurants in California, Mr. Cook assumed that the venue and jurisdiction provisions in the several identical franchise agreements were enforceable and controlling. The Federal Court, applying Michigan law, granted Little Caesar's motion which terminated most of Mr. Cook's claims. Full Story

Franchise Law

May 2000

CALIFORNIA FRANCHISEES CELEBRATE HUGE VICTORY

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finally ruled on one of Kramer & Kaslow's GNC franchise cases. At issue was the enforceablilty of the Pennsylvania Forum Selection Clause. According to the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the Pennsylvania Forum Selection Clause in an agreement between GNC and a California franchisee is unenforceable because it contravenes the strong public policy expressed in the California Relations Act to protect California franchisees from being forced to litigate franchise related disputes outside the state. Full Story

Franchise Law

April 2000

GNC GETS HIT WITH ENCROACHMENT JUDGMENT

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Everyone agrees that litigation between franchisor and franchisee should be resisted and only undertaken as a last resort. However, when litigation is necessary, conventional wisdom provides that franchisees should endeavor to prosecute litigation in their home states since it is more expensive and more difficult to sue a franchisor in its home state. Full Story

Franchise Law

March 2000

FRANCHISE BUYER BEWARE

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

Imagine a struggling franchisee who wants to sell his business to a buyer. The buyer, who competes with the franchisor, wishes to buy the business in order to expand its customer base and territory. Can the buyer of the business be found liable to the franchisor for interfering with the franchisor's pre-existing business relationship with the franchisee? Full Story

Franchise Law

February 2000

PROPER IMPLICATION OF THE COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

by Michael A. Cabotaje, Esq.

Franchisors and franchisees are no different from parties to other enforceable contracts in that they, too, are subject to these same principles regarding the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The New Hampshire Supreme Court case of Hobin v. Coldwell Banker Residential Affiliates demonstrates the application of the above principles in the franchise context. Full Story

Franchise Law

January 2000

BURGER KING GETS HIT WITH A WHOPPER

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Burger King has been hit with a huge encroachment judgment based upon findings of its wrongful dealings with its Australian licensee. As a result of Burger King's breaches of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty, the Australian Court awarded the equivalent of approximately 45 million U.S. dollars to the franchisee for its loss of the opportunity to open new outlets, and for its loss of opportunity to sell outlets to third-party franchisees. Full Story

Franchise Law

December 1999

CAN A FRANCHISEE CHOOSE WHERE TO LITIGATE?: THE INTERPLAY BETWEEN STATE PUBLIC POLICY AND FORUM SELECTION CLAUSES

by Michael A. Cabotaje, Esq.

In Swendseid et al. v. GNC Franchising, Inc., a Federal District Court denied a franchisor's motion to dismiss for improper venue, relying on California's strong public policy that is hostile to forum selection clauses in franchise agreements. This decision allows the California franchisee to maintain its case in California despite a forum selection clause to the contrary in the parties' signed franchise agreement. Although this case is presently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court, it is a reminder and example of important issues surrounding the franchisee/franchisor relationship. Full Story

Franchise Law

November 1999

FRANCHISEES CANNOT BE FORCED TO "WAIVE" GOODBYE TO THEIR RIGHT TO A JURY

by Michael A. Cabotaje, Esq.

The Seventh Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the right to a trial by jury in suits of common law. So accustomed are we to thinking of the right to a jury trial as fundamental, that it may surprise many to learn that the Seventh Amendment right can be waived by a simple written agreement ... and often is! However, as this newsletter addresses, courts may find contractual waivers of the right to a jury trial unenforceable and invalid under the common law theories of fraud in the inducement, unconscionability and economic duress. This situation often arises in the franchise context. Full Story

Franchise Law

October 1999

FRANCHISEE SAYS
"I KEPT MY CASE IN SAN FRANCISCO"


by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

In a recent Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal case, the Court made a ruling that will have an important impact on whether California franchisees can fight out-of-state franchisors in California despite the existence of a contractual venue and jurisdiction provision to the contrary. The Ninth Circuit has made it clear that it intends to allow Californians to reap the benefits and protections afforded under the California Franchise Relations Act. Full Story

Franchise Law

September 1999

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS AN OPTION FOR ENFORCING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ONLY UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

by Michael A. Cabotaje, Esq.

Preliminary injuctions are sometimes available in franchise litigation. Just this past month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed a lower court's denial of a preliminary injunction in Bandag, Inc. v. Jack's Tire & Oil, Inc. In that case, the franchisor sought a preliminary injunction to require its former franchisee to keep its promise not to compete under the franchise agreement. Full Story

Franchise Law

August 1999

FRANCHISORS REAP THE BENEFITS OF "BOILERPLATE" ARBITRATION PROVISIONS

by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

Perhaps it gets overlooked in the excitement to close the deal. Maybe a lawyer advises that arbitration is an effective and inexpensive alternative to business litigation in the unlikely event that a dispute should arise. In any case, two recent federal cases illustrate the risks of failing to fully understand the significance of "boilerplate" arbitration terms in franchise agreements. Full Story

Franchise Law

July 1999

CHEATING FRANCHISEE GETS "DUNKED" WITHOUT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Many franchisees rely on the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing to avoid the harsh language in their franchise agreements. However, in a recent dispute, a franchisee who was caught under-reporting its sales, was left without recourse after the Court ruled that it was not entitled to any opportunity to cure its mistakes. Full Story

Franchise Law

June 1999

FEDERAL LAW PREEMPTS CALIFORNIA LAW IN
FRANCHISE CASE


by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

In a recent court opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that franchisees could not rely upon a California statute to add protections not expressly contained in a federal statute. This ruling is troubling to franchisees who expect that legislative enactments, approved and adopted by the State of California, will be controlling law. Full Story

Franchise Law

May 1999

FRANCHISEES BRING CLASS ACTION BASED UPON BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

A recent Court of Appeals case has reviewed a franchise class action lawsuit concerning the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Court's ruling is a victory for franchisees since it recognizes that "good faith" requires more than a bona fide business justification. Full Story

Franchise Law

April 1999

RECENT BURGER KING CASE COMPLICATES THE
ISSUE OF FRANCHISOR ENCROACHMENT


by Sean G. Newman, Esq.

This month, in Burger King Corp. v. Weaver, a U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirmed a Florida court's opinion overruling the famous Scheck case and limiting the ability of franchisees to prevail in cases of franchisor encroachment. Weaver is an important case because it highlights a significant unresolved issue in the franchisee-franchisor relationship. Full Story

Franchise Law

March 1999

GNC DISPUTES SETTLEMENT WITH FRANCHISEE AND
GETS HIT WITH JUDGMENT


by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Most settlements between franchisees and franchisors are never disclosed. Franchisors usually require settlement agreements to be confidential because they don't want other franchisees to know that franchisors actually pay money to settle disputes. However, a recent "disputed" settlement of a lawsuit between a GNC franchisee and a GNC franchisor was reported in a legal newspaper. Full Story

Franchise Law

February 1999

DEFAULTING FRANCHISEE STILL
RETAINS RIGHTS AGAINST FRANCHISOR


by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

This month the Supreme Court of Texas upheld a Texas Court of Appeals decision which could have broad implications in the franchisee community. Full Story

Franchise Law

January 1999

CONFIDENTIAL SETTLEMENT OFFERS
ADMISSIBLE IN ARBITRATION


by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

Most lawyers tell their clients that "confidential" settlement communications are secret negotiations between the parties and are never admissible in court. In fact, most jurisdictions have enacted rules of evidence which specifically exclude any reference to settlement communications. Normally, litigants are encouraged to candidly discuss settlement and to exchange settlement offers without concern that the settlement offers can be used against them if the matter proceeds to trial. However, in a recent case, a settlement offer was used against the franchisor at an arbitration hearing. Full Story

Franchise Law

December 1998

PIZZA! PIZZA! MAKER MUST PAY $14.9 MILLION

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq. and Tal Grinblat, Esq.

Recently a Texas jury awarded a disgruntled franchisee $14.9 million against the Little Caesars parent corporation. That's a lot of dough! The facts, however, demonstrate that the franchisor may not have been acting in good faith and may not have been dealing fairly. Full Story

Franchise Law

November 1998

FTC HAS "REVOLUTIONARY" VICTORY

by Philip A. Kramer, Esq.

History fondly remembers the Minutemen as the group of armed men pledged to take the field at a minute's notice during and immediately before the American Revolutionary War. However, a Federal Court Judge recently found that one of their namesakes, Minuteman Press International, Inc., has been acting like a villain rather than a patriotic hero. Full Story



www.kramer-kaslow.com
Copyright © 2009
Kramer & Kaslow, PC

The information provided by this web site is for informational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. Consult qualified legal counsel first before acting on this information. Transmission or receipt of information through this web site is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. Links to or from this site do not imply that either party endorses the other site, its publishers, or the information it contains.