Question: Peaberry Coffee Inc owned and operated about twenty company stores
Peaberry Coffee, Inc., owned and operated about twenty company stores in the Denver area. The company began a franchise program and pre-pared a disclosure document as required by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). Peaberry sold ten franchises, and each franchisee received a disclosure document. Later, when the franchises did not do well, the franchisees sued Peaberry, claiming that its FTC disclosure document had been fraudulent. Specifically, the franchisees claimed that Peaberry had not disclosed that most of the company stores were unprofitable and that its parent company had suffered significant financial losses over the years. In addition, Peaberry had included in the franchisees’ information packets, an article from the Denver Business Journal in which an executive had said that Peaberry was profit-able. The FTC disclosure document had also contained an exculpatory clause, which said the buyers should not rely on any material that was not in the franchise contract itself. Can a franchisor disclaim the relevance of the information it provides to franchisees? Why or why not?
Answer to relevant QuestionsKubota Tractor Corp. makes farm, industrial, and outdoor equipment. Its franchise contracts allow Kubota to enter into dealership agreements with “others at any location.” Kejzar Motors, Inc., is a Kubota dealer in ...Shawna and David formed a partnership. At the time of the partnership’s formation, Shawna’s capital contribution was $ 10,000, and David’s was $ 15,000. Later, Shawna made a $ 10,000 loan to the partnership when it ...The Legal Environment DimensionWould dissolution be appropriate if the parties had formed a partnership rather than an LLC? Explain your answer. What if the Facts Were Different?Suppose that Murray could have pinpointed a job-related basis for determining the distribution of the net profits among the defendants. Would the result have been different? Explain.The ...1. How many shareholders were present at the shareholders’ meeting that gave rise to the dispute in this case? 2. How did the court “characterize” and “classify” the shares of stock that Cale and Shirley Case held ...
Post your question