Download PDF - 208 kb
Download PDF - 208 kb Download PDF - 208 kb
2. The Case Law 1005633 Ontario Inc. v. Winchester Arms. Ltd. (2000, Ontario) • Franchisee brought an action for breach of contract, negligent misrepresentation and breach of the duty of good faith in case involving failed pub. • The promotional package to sell the franchise promised a fully-equipped “turnkey” pub, extensive training and ongoing support. • Little training provided, insufficient operations manual given, and franchisees left “to operate something they had not been adequately prepared to run.” • Franchisors unresponsive to requests for assistance. • Franchisor found liable.
2. The Case Law On the other hand... TRC Enterprises v. Tobmar Newstands Inc. (Gateway) (2010, Manitoba) • Franchisee had failed newsstand business in a casino and brought a claim against franchisor, alleging (among other things) misrepresentation that franchisor “had a system for doing business”. • The court held that although the support system and supervision in system were very weak, there was a system. The franchisor found the location, ordered opening inventory, trained the franchisee, assisted with the opening, and were available when called upon.
- Page 1 and 2: LEAN ON ME?: A FRANCHISOR’S S OBL
- Page 3 and 4: 1. How Does The Duty To Support Ari
- Page 5 and 6: 1. How Does The Duty To Support Ari
- Page 7 and 8: 1. How Does The Duty To Support Ari
- Page 9 and 10: 1. How Does The Duty To Support Ari
- Page 11: 2. The Case Law Machias v. Mr Subm
- Page 15 and 16: 2. The Case Law Khagen Investments
- Page 17 and 18: 2. The Case Law Other Cases: • G
- Page 19 and 20: 3. Hypotheticals The franchisor off
- Page 21 and 22: 3. Hypotheticals At all relevant ti
- Page 23 and 24: 4. Best Practices Operations Manua
- Page 25: 5. Questions and Answers
2. The Case Law<br />
1005633 Ontario Inc. v. Winchester Arms. Ltd.<br />
(2000, Ontario)<br />
• Franchisee brought an action for breach of contract,<br />
negligent misrepresentation and breach of the duty<br />
of good faith in case involving failed pub.<br />
• The promotional package to sell the franchise<br />
promised a fully-equipped<br />
“turnkey” pub, extensive<br />
training and ongoing support.<br />
• Little training provided, insufficient operations<br />
manual given, and franchisees left “to operate<br />
something they had not been adequately prepared to<br />
run.”<br />
• Franchisors unresponsive to requests for assistance.<br />
• Franchisor found liable.
Change language