Answer:
The case facts:
The companies MI and CO formed a joint venture named MC to better compete with the dominant manufacturer in the beer industry. Both the companies had an agreement to resolve disputes, and distribute the revenue between them to carry out venture operations. Ohio Alcoholic Beverage Franchise Act caused termination of beer distributors. MC notified that Ohio law had terminated its distributorship.
Ohio Alcoholic Beverage Franchise Act :
The law regulates the franchise relationship between the Ohio distributors to re-sale alcoholic beverages and Ohio retailers. According to this act, no manufacturer or distributor would fail to act under the terms of franchise to sale or distribute alcohol.
The franchise act avails an exceptional cause for the termination if "a successor manufacturer acquires all of the stock of another manufacturer through merger or acquisition of one alcoholic manufacturer with another manufacturer".
Adhering to franchise act, MC declared that its venture was authorized to terminate distributorship by successor manufacturer. Therefore, the plaintiff, alcoholic distributor have the right to continue its distribution franchise.
Answer:
Refer to the case Dunkin Donuts of America v Minerva to answer question as below:
Facts to this case
• K is a franchisee of a nationally known donut franchise.
• K rejected the advertisement decision by the franchisor.
• The franchisor then audited her store. They cited K underreported sales and terminated her franchise.
• The auditing was not part of the franchise agreement.
Case Issue
The issue is whether there was a good faith termination of the franchise.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Good Faith - franchisors are expected to act in good faith when dealing with franchisees. Franchisors can't terminate a franchise agreement without a valid reason.
Opinion
The court held for K. They argued that:
• The audits were a result of K 's rejection of the franchisor's advertisement plan.
• The audit test weren't disclosed in the franchise agreement with K.
• Termination seemed unwarranted as there wasn't intentional underreporting of sales.
Thus, the franchisor failed to uphold good faith in dealing with the franchisee.
Answer:
Refer to the case Brenner v Plitt to answer question as below:
Facts to this case
• P lent money to B to purchase scrap metal.
• B would purchase the scrap metal for resale and return's P 's money with compensation.
• P was compensated even if B made no profit.
• This happen frequently.
• P argued that they were in a joint venture.
Case Issue
The issue is whether P and B are in a joint venture for the scrap metal business.
Relevant Terms, Laws, and Cases
Joint Venture - an organization formed to make profit from a single event. For example, a couple of friends join to sell baked cookies for cash is a joint venture.
Opinion
The court held for B. They argued that:
• A joint venture is two or more people combine in a business relationship where profits and losses are shared.
• Furthermore, there must be intention to form a partnership.
• P did not share the loss in the business and there was no formation of the partnership.
Thus, the business between P and B was not a joint venture.