Search for: "Reap v. Reap"
Results 41 - 60
of 918
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
25 Jan 2024, 3:30 am
They have argued that the language of “reaping where you have not sown”—to use the famous, but doctrinally discredited, agricultural metaphor of INS v. [read post]
8 Mar 2010, 3:10 pm
In most entertainment industries, the distributors of content reap a much larger share of the profit than the creators of said content. [read post]
24 Mar 2010, 8:56 pm
In any event, the reference to “inconsistency” limited the court’s inquiry to direct conflict, not express or field preemption.There was no inconsistency between the prohibition against disclosing a parent’s financial statements absent a guarantee and merely informing prospective franchisees that the franchisor’s parent has been, or is, unprofitable.The decision—Colorado Coffee Bean LLC v. [read post]
23 Jul 2010, 8:23 am
While those harms were not overwhelming, they were also not trivial and were greater than any meaningful harms to Chrysler, which were largely non-existent, the arbitrator concluded.A detailed summary of the arbitrator’s determination (Fury Dodge, LLC v. [read post]
12 Jul 2018, 6:00 am
Basho Technologies Holdco B LLC v. [read post]
22 Mar 2013, 9:15 am
The court probes the online underbelly's innards in Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Feb 2011, 1:12 pm
In that document, the FTC made a clear distinction between "affiliated persons" and "suppliers," thereby exposing the fallacy of the franchisee’s theory that the affiliate should be treated the same as an unaffiliated supplier.The February 11 decision in Cleaning Authority, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Mar 2011, 2:25 pm
In light of the parties’ history and the assurances he had received, the franchisee was justified in assuming that there were no obstacles to his re-licensure, according to the court.The decision is Holiday Inn Franchising, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Aug 2011, 8:07 am
Because the franchisor had no duty to disclose the historical financial performance of the store, the franchisee’s common law fraudulent omission claim, as well as her IFDA and “little FTC Act” claims, failed.The decision in 7-Eleven, Inc. v. [read post]
28 Sep 2010, 2:52 pm
Thus, the second theory of direct benefits estoppel did not apply.The September 15 decision in Noble Drilling Services, Inc. v. [read post]
23 Jun 2011, 1:44 pm
It was the franchisee brother’s estate—not the franchisee brother—that refused to recognize the partnership and share the profits with the investor brother, the court observed.The decision in Marte v. [read post]
25 Jan 2011, 3:36 pm
Thus, the balance of harms clearly favored the franchisee, the court ruled.The decision is Husain v. [read post]
16 Sep 2010, 5:57 pm
The Commission also failed to establish that the state’s regulatory objectives could not be achieved through nondiscriminatory means.Because the legislative process offered more flexibility for solving the constitutional deficiency than was available judicially, the enforcement of the court’s chosen remedy was temporarily stayed to permit the legislature to avail itself of a much broader range of possible solutions, if it so chose.The decision is Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Apr 2010, 7:32 am
Hotel Franchisor Not Liable for Patrons’ Contracting of Disease at FranchiseThis posting was written by Pete Reap, Editor of CCH Business Franchise Guide.A hotel franchisor that never voluntarily took on the task of maintaining the pool and spa at a franchised hotel was not directly or vicariously liable for hotel patrons’ alleged contracting of Legionnaires Disease, a federal district court in Springfield, Illinois, has decided. [read post]
27 May 2010, 7:27 am
His challenge to the statistics the franchisor provided regarding ethnic franchisees did not establish a reasonable inference that its explanation—that he failed to submit a completed site submittal package—lacked credibility, the court held.The decision is Halloum v. [read post]
17 Jun 2010, 1:09 pm
Thus, there was no reason to expect that the mixture of store models would remain static.Even assuming that the franchisor was considering a change to the way new stores could operate in the future, the franchisee failed to show that disclosure of this fact would have been necessary to make the franchise offering not misleading, according to the court.The June 1 unpublished decision is Something Sweet v. [read post]
24 Jan 2011, 7:06 am
The January 10 decision is Hockey Enterprises, Inc. v. [read post]
26 Jan 2011, 6:33 am
Thus, the balance of harms clearly favored the franchisee, the court ruled.The decision is Husain v. [read post]
22 Dec 2009, 7:39 am
The decision is F&C Flooring Distributors, Inc. v. [read post]
24 Nov 2009, 10:08 am
In Eastman Kodak Co. v. [read post]
