In addition, if the franchisor enters management (voluntary or otherwise) and the franchisor must provide the franchisee with the name and address of the designated donor in the management process (point 17 g). If your franchisor has entered the administration, contact your franchise lawyer for advice on what to do next. After entering into a sales contract for the franchise, the Chus took a test as part of the normal application process to become franchisees. When Ms. Chu failed the test, the chus complained that the franchisor had interfered with their sales contract. That they were the third parties in a previous transaction agreement between the franchisor and the former franchisees and that the franchisors were in violation of the New York Franchise Sales Act.4 The court dismissed these claims, including the reason for inaction for unlawful interference, because „the only alleged intervention is the defendant`s refusal to approve a plaintiff`s request to purchase and that this possibility is expressly provided for in the contract. Dunkins exercises its contractual right to authorize proposed purchasers is not an „intervention“ of the kind for which a discharge may be granted. 5 Franchise agreements may also expressly allow the franchisor to exercise its own discretion independently of a tacit contract of benevolence. In Zuckerman v. McDonald`s Corp., the court found that McDonald`s franchise agreement unequivocally prohibiting the franchisee from awarding its shares without McDonald`s prior written consent and that McDonald`s stated that it was prepared not to hold them carefully.41 The agreement also identified the criteria that McDonald`s might consider when it had to give or refuse its consent. The Tribunal found that the terms of the contract clearly allowed McDonald`s to enjoy discretion, so that no legal basis remained in place in Illinois law to apply the tacit confederation of good faith.
The Tribunal also found that: 42 In basCO, Inc. v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc. d/b/a The Body Shop, Inc.,6, the district court issued a summary judgment to a franchisor stating that the applicant`s franchisee violated the Minnesota franchise law with the consent of a transfer.