In January 2016 Ben Sisko bought a “Quark's Burgers” franchise in Montana. Quark's Burgers has over 100 franchisees, and its franchise agreement states that all franchisees must offer menu items as directed by Quark's Burgers and that the failure to do so could result in the immediate termination of the franchise. Ben bought the franchise because he was a vegetarian, and its menu was free of meat products.  In addition, Ben's religion forbids the eating of any meat products. 

Ben's franchise was very successful, and every year he received an award from Quark's Burgers for being one of the top 10% of its franchisees.

In April 2019 Quark's Burgers changed its menu; among the changes included breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham, or sausage. Ben refused to sell these items at his store on the ground that his religion forbids the eating of pork products.  

In January 2020 Ben opened a second franchise, at which he also refused to sell products with meat products. Ben's franchises continued to be successful. In March 2020 Ben proposed to relocate the new franchise, Quark's Burgers refused to approve the new location and informed him that it was terminating his franchise agreements because he did not carry the full sandwich line.

Do you believe that Quark's Burgers was justified in its decision to terminate Ben's franchises?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Here in this case scenario the franchise agreement with Ben Sisko and Quark Burgers started in Janua... View the full answer