Nevada’s new law AB 276 provides comfort to franchisors seeking to enforce covenants not to compete in the state.
Last night I reviewed a franchise agreement and found a surprising, and illegal, provision buried deep in the contract. If ever there was a compelling case for being careful when you are choosing legal counsel, I just found the provision that makes it.
The second of a two-part piece examining why “dabbling” franchise attorneys — that is, those who are inexperienced in franchising and franchise law but get involved with franchise transactions anyway — can be harmful to their clients.
One of the most common provisions in franchise agreements is the “forum-selection” clause. This article examines the forum-selection provision and a recent case involving such a provision, Maaco Franchising Inc. v. Tainter.
A recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals case addresses the use of exculpatory clauses in franchise agreements, and determines that the clauses relied upon by the franchisor to avoid liability were both insufficiently specific and not conspicuous. As a result, the exculpatory clauses failed to protect the franchisor against fraud claims by the franchisee.
A recent decision from a federal court in California addresses the enforceability of a general release of claims signed by former franchisees.