Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Enforcing Arbitration Clauses in 'Hidden' or Unlawful Franchise Agreements
Licensors, manufacturers, and other businesses that find themselves as unwitting franchisors face interesting issues when they attempt to enforce an arbitration clause. Most registration states will usually have statutory provisions that declare that the sale of an unregistered franchise or the sale of a franchise without the required disclosure is unlawful. See, e.g., Cal. Corp. Code ” 31110, 31119; 815 Ill.Comp.Stat. ' 705/5; N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ' 683.1; Wash. Rev. Code ' 19.100.020.(1). However, in the usual case, the sale is not declared to be void, but is voidable through an action for rescission. See, e.g. Cal. Corp. Code ” 31300; Wash. Rev. Code ' 19.100.190(2); N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law ' 691; 815 Ill.Comp.Stat. ' 705/26.
When the putative franchisee sues in court, it can be expected that it will attempt to maximize the remedies allowed by the registration laws, such as rescission and/or statutory penalties. If the challenged agreement has an arbitration clause, it is likely that the unwitting franchisor will petition a state or federal court to compel arbitration. It can be expected that the putative franchisee will resist such an attempt by claiming that the contract is an illegal franchise agreement and thus the arbitration clause cannot be enforced.
The cases that have dealt with the defense of illegality to enforcement of arbitration agreements usually follow the rules that have been developed with respect to allegations of fraud in the inducement, but there are some differences that should not be overlooked. The outcome of such a challenge will largely rise or fall on a determination of whether the agreement is void or voidable, whether the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. ” 1 et seq. (FAA) will apply, and if so, in what federal circuit the moving party lands.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.