Franchise law Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

prerogative law - Essay ExampleTherefore, each of the regeneration boundarys raised by Joe must be examined in terms of whether or not, the proposed conditions and terms constitute mature faith and fair traffic movement for refusing renewal of the expiring franchise contract. In general, Joe takes issue with the requirement to purchase meat and cheese from Hoagie democracy in Philadelphia when it is more convenient for him to purchase the same from Hoagie Land in rude(a) York, the stipend of what Joe considers an excessive legal fee, the payment of a renewal fee, the inst onlyation of a point of sales systems, toleration of a new sign and remodelling. The question for consideration is whether or not each of these terms and conditions flush toilet be characterized as inconsistent with the concept of fair dealing and trusty faith. The concept of fair dealing and good faith was considered in the carapace of Payne v McDonalds Corp. In this case, the franchisors renewal was qualified upon the franchisees consent to rebuild the restaurant. The court held however, that the requirement for rebuilding was not inconsistent with the concept of good faith and fair dealing (Payne v McDonalds Corp.). However, the facts of Joes case can be sublime from the facts of Payne v McDonalds Corp. ... The ruled in Payne that since there was no express right to renewal, the franchisor was not at a lower place a duty to renew the franchise and in deciding to do so could condition renewal on requirements that suited its business ends (Payne v McDonalds Corp.). Some guidance is found in the case of Breslers 33 Flavors Franchising Corp. v Woksin. In the case, the court ruled that in order to satisfy a claim that a refusal to renew on terms and conditions that were inconsistent with the concept of fair dealing and good faith, the claimant must show that the terms and conditions were only applied to the claimant and not to any other franchisor. Specifically, when the renewal term was for remodelling, the claimant must also show that to the satisfaction of the court that remodelling would have a negative impact on profitability (Breslers 33 Flavors Franchising Corp. v Woksin). I would therefore advise Joe to provide as oft evidence as possible demonstrating that remodelling would negatively impact profitability and that purchasing meat and cheese from Philadelphia rather than from New York would negatively impact profitability. In looking at the requirement to purchase meat from Philadelphia as opposed to New York, it is unlikely that Joe can excise this term as it appears to be applicable to all franchisees and is stated to be for quality control and for economies of scale. To begin with, it may be argued that purchasing from the Philadelphia suppliers may be more convenient for Joe since his restaurant is located in Cherry Hill, New Jersey which is nearer to Philadelphia than it is to New York. Moreover, the requirement to purchase meat and cheese fr om the Philadelphia supplier applies to all franchisees and does not discriminate