Carolina Home Solutions 1, Inc. v. Crystal Coast Home Solutions, Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 020-080-17, 10 pp.) (Louis Bledsoe III, J.) 2017 NCBC 74 Holding: Defendant argues that plaintiff’s 2013 facility sale to defendant is unenforceable because plaintiff had already ...

Tagged with: Franchise

Chorley Enterprises Inc. v. Dickey’s Barbecue Restaurants Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 15-01-0795, 39 pp.) (Floyd, J.) No. 14-1799, Aug. 5, 2015; USDC at Baltimore, Greenbelt, Md. (Grimm, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: Two owners of Dickey’s barbecue restaurant franchises may try ...

Tagged with: Arbitration Franchise

Griffin Farm & Landfill, Inc. v. Town of Unionville Three authorizations are required to build and operate a construction and demolition (C&D) landfill: local zoning approval, a local government franchise, and a permit from the state. Where plaintiffs stopped accepting C&D waste seven months before their franchise expired, and where the defendant-town exercised its discretion in denying plaintiffs a new franchise, plaintiffs did not have a common law vested interest to a new franchise agreement.

Tagged with: Constitutional Franchise Municipal Real Property special-use permit Zoning

Outdoor Lighting Perspectives Franchising, Inc. v. Harders The covenant not to compete in the parties’ expired franchise agreement is written so broadly that it is unenforceable. Nevertheless, the agreement clearly requires the ex-franchisee to return certain materials to the franchisor upon termination of the agreement.

Tagged with: Civil Practice Contract Covenant Not to Compete Franchise preliminary injunction

Bauer v. Douglas Aquatics, Inc. Even though defendants' franchise agreement explicitly stated that the North Carolina franchisee was not the Virginia franchisor's agent, since (1) the plaintiff-customer was not privy to the franchise agreement, (2) the franchisee represented itself to plaintiff as part of the franchisor, and (3) the franchisor's website described the franchisee as part of the franchisor, the franchisee was the franchisor's apparent agent. It does not offend due process for N.C. courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over the Va. franchisor.

Tagged with: Agency Civil Practice first impression Franchise Mecklenburg County Minimum Contacts personal jurisdiction