September 8, 2008

Franchisors' Rights

We noted in our first blog that both the business and the law of franchising are rapidly developing. One of our aims in this blog is to assist interested parties in staying abreast of those developments, whether they be attorneys, franchisors, franchisees or others working with them.

Our August 12 blog discussed a significant case for franchisees. Franchisor rights have also been evolving. In a significant victory for franchisors, a federal appeals court has ruled that a franchisor may require the purchase and use of specific equipment by its franchisees. The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, in a case involving Domino’s Pizza (Bores v. Domino’s Pizza, LLC, 530 F.3d 671 [2008]), overruled the trial court and held that a provision in the Domino’s franchise agreement permitted the franchisor to require its franchisees to purchase and install custom-designed integrated computer systems created specially for Domino’s units. The lower court ruling had caused significant concern in the franchise industry, where many franchise agreements require the purchase of specific computer equipment for point-of-sale systems.

The reversal turned on interpretation of the words “any” and “specification.” The franchisee plaintiffs argued that the provision at issue—“We will provide you with specifications for… computer hardware and software…. You may purchase items meeting our specifications from any source.”—had meaning only if the equipment at issue were available for sale from more than one source. The court disagreed. The court held as well that in fact a franchisee could purchase the point-of-sale equipment mandated either new from Domino’s or used from another franchisee.

Franchise practioners continue to assemble these fresh readings of contract language and statutory references to make certain that their own documents present their clients with the most advantageous interpretation.

August 12, 2008

Rights of Franchisees

Periodically we will examine recent decisions and statutory developments that relate to the relationships of franchisors and franchisees. The following is a developing case of significance.

Unless the Court of Appeals rules otherwise—and whether the high court of New York State will even hear the issue remains to be seen—a franchisor may not employ a pre-sale questionnaire subscribed by a prospective franchisee to summarily defeat the franchisee’s claims of fraud brought under the New York Franchise Act.

In Emfore Corp. v. Blimpie Associates, Ltd, et al., the Appellate Division, First Department reversed the trial court’s dismissal of a franchisee plaintiff’s claims of fraud in the inducement under section 687 of the NY Franchise Act, holding that subsections (4) and (5), the “anti-waiver” provisions of the Act, preclude such dismissal.

Blimpie, supported by the International Franchise Association as amicus curiae, moved the First Department to reconsider, maintaining that questionnaires are used to root out fraud, not to foster it; the appellate court in May modified its decision and order, but did not alter its general holding. Again with the IFA in its corner, Blimpie most recently moved the First Department for a clarification of its ruling or, in the alternative, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals. The First Department last week denied the motion in its entirety.

Einbinder & Dunn represents Emfore Corp.
Submitted by Matthew D. Brozik, Esq.