The Center for Total Quality Franchising®

Member Login

Franchise Owners: Like it or Not, it’s Time to Plan for the Affordable Care Act

AAFD Public Guest Posting Policy

Bob Purvin Joins Roundtable Discussion Of Franchise Real Estate Issues On Podcast

Rethinking the U.S. Supreme Court’s Abandonment Requirement in Mac’s Shell Service, Inc. V. Shell Oil Products

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a franchisee who sues her franchisor for constructive termination of the franchise contract must abandon her franchise unit before filing the suit. Dr. Uri Benoliel, head of the Commercial Law Department at the Academic Center of Law & Business, recently published an article in the Rutgers Law Journal noting that the decision was problematic. The AAFD is pleased to have Dr. Benoliel explain his opinion on the AAFD Franchisee Voice blog. By Uri Benoliel Assume a franchisor takes destructive economic actions toward his franchisee in order to force the latter to give up the franchise. The franchisee, in turn, sues the franchisor for constructive termination of the franchise contract. Can the franchisee file such a suit before actually abandoning the franchise unit? This central question was discussed by the United States Supreme Court in Mac’s Shell Services Inc. v. Shell Oil Products (130 S. Ct. 1251 (2010)). The Supreme Court ruled that a franchisee must abandon her franchise before suing for constructive termination of the franchise contract. This ruling was based on one central factual assumption: that franchisee abandonment costs—namely the costs and risks borne by a franchisee in exiting a franchise relationship—are not uniquely high. I believe that such an assumption is problematic. Normally, franchisee abandonment costs are in fact exceptionally high. Franchisees normally undertake significant specific investments that are lost, entirely or partially, if the franchisees abandon the franchise. To begin with, a franchisee often invests in leasehold improvements, namely to fixtures that are attached to the retail or commercial space and installed by the franchisee when setting up a new location. Examples of such improvements include walls, doors, cabinets, light fixtures, and floor coverings. Depending upon the conditions of the space and the particular business model, the required leasehold improvements can be extensive. For example, a Subway franchisee may be required to invest up to $130,000 in leasehold improvements. Leasehold improvements are often lost if the franchisee abandons the franchise. This loss is incurred mainly because many franchisors require the franchisee to rent from them, rather than own, the land upon which the outlet is located. In addition, if the franchisee should abandon...

Recent Revision of Ohio Business Opportunity Law provides new protections for Franchisees

New Law Allows Lower Credit and Debit Card Processing Fees

Recent legislation was passed that makes it possible for franchisees to reduce what they pay in card processing fees to Visa and MasterCard. The Durbin Amendment was a last-minute addition to the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that went into effect October 1, 20011. The Federal Reserve ruled that debit interchange fees to merchants were too high and would be capped at $.21 plus 0.05% per transaction. This new legislation has the power to reduce the costs that franchisees pay to accept Visa and MasterCard debit cards by about 70%. In order to take advantage of this new pricing, a merchant MUST be set up on a true “interchange plus” pricing structure. To find out how to qualify for the discounted rates please contact the AAFD’s endorsed merchant services provider, Payment Alliance International at 866-371-2273 opt 1 or email them at Mention this article and receive a free savings analysis that will clearly outline your “Durbin Dollars” in...