Question

Allison Seizer's very wealthy father, entrepreneur Warren Seizer of Chimichonga Chime restaurant fame, was not what attracted Blake Patterson to her. It was love at first sight, and the two were married two years ago.

Seizer wanted the best for his daughter and son-in-law, so he offered Patterson a Chimichonga Chime franchise with a prime location in the center of the Elmwood business district. After a year under Patterson's ownership, it became clear that the newest Chimichonga Chime was a tremendous business success. In fact, records in sales, revenue, and profit goals for the restaurant were shattered in its first year of operation. Patterson believes that his hands-on ownership and operation of the restaurant was an important part of the store's success.

Unfortunately, the couple's relationship has suffered over time, and the term "irreconcilable differences" has been frequently mentioned in their conversations. Patterson asks for a divorce, and his wife obliges.

Seizer is furious. He is firmly convinced that Patterson is to blame for the marriage's dissolution because there is no conceivable way (at least in his mind) that his "darling angel," his "precious daughter," could be responsible. The creative genius behind Chimichonga Chime plots justice for his daughter and himself—although some may call it revenge.

On September 1, Warren Seizer personally delivers a Notice of Termination of Franchise to Blake Patterson. The document states that Patterson's franchise agreement has been terminated for cause and he must either close the restaurant or cease and desist from using the name Chimichonga Chime and the company's logo and from selling all franchise-related products within 30 days.

What is the rule of law? And who wins based on the rule of law (the father or the son-in-law)? Why?

Answer 1

Answer:

The Franchise Rule of Law: The Franchise rule of law state the compliance of the agreement by the franchisor and franchisee and can seek legal help upon non-compliance of the franchise agreement between the both parties i.e. franchisor and franchisee.

The Franchisor has the termination authority for the franchise agreement if any of the term and condition of the agreement is not fulfilled or not complied.

In this scenario, if father Seizer can find any non compliance as per the franchisee agreement between him and his son in law, then legally seizer can terminate the franchise business and Peterson will lose the case, and father will won the case.

But if son in law can prove that he is complied with the franchise agreement and completely fulfilling the agreed terms and conditions as per the franchise agreement than son in law will win the case and father cannot terminate the franchise business.

But in this case, the father seizer already released a notice which states that for the given cause the franchise business is terminated, this means that father Seizer has a valid reason for the franchise termination and if father Seizer can show the adequate evidences, then father will win the case and on in law will lose.