A federal court in Arizona granted in part and denied in part cross-motions for summary judgment, finding that an unsigned agreement with various omitted terms and handwritten notations was not enforceable under Arizona’s statute of frauds. Realty Execs. Int’l Servs. LLC v. Devonshire W. Canada Ltd., 2020 WL 5057655 (D. Ariz. Aug. 27, 2020). In 2008, shortly before a previous agreement expired, franchisor REI sent Devonshire an FDD with a new form of Regional Developer Agreement. Devonshire did not sign the agreement as tendered; instead, its principal proposed substantive changes in handwritten notations and other material terms were not filled in. When various disputes arose between the parties, REI sued Devonshire under the agreement and Devonshire filed counterclaims against REI.
On the parties’ motions for summary judgment, Devonshire successfully asserted that the 2008 Area Developer Franchise Agreement between the parties failed to satisfy the statute of frauds. The 2008 Agreement contained a blank signature line, was just a sample agreement, was never returned to REI, and therefore could not be considered a final, enforceable agreement between the parties. Neither the 2008 Agreement nor the 2008 Franchise Disclosure Document in which it was contained identified Devonshire as a party. The court refused to look beyond the four corners of the contract to complete essential missing terms. The court also determined no exceptions to the statute of frauds applied
because performance of the 2008 Agreement was not possible within one year, and REI sought only monetary damages so the court would not grant an “equitable” exception for partial performance. The court granted summary judgment over all claims based on the 2008 Agreement, including breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, leaving only Devonshire’s tortious interference claims.
Maisa Frank represents clients in a variety of litigation matters. Whether conducting pre-dispute investigations, navigating litigation, or negotiating resolutions, Maisa’s advice and strategy is vital to clients facing ...
Richard Landon is a trial and appellate attorney who advises and represents businesses resolving disputes in antitrust, distribution, and franchising, as well as shareholder disputes and other complex commercial litigation ...
The information contained in this post is provided to alert you to legal developments and should not be considered legal advice. It is not intended to and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Specific questions about how this information affects your particular situation should be addressed to one of the individuals listed. No representations or warranties are made with respect to this information, including, without limitation, as to its completeness, timeliness, or accuracy, and Lathrop GPM shall not be liable for any decision made in connection with the information. The choice of a lawyer is an important decision and should not be based solely on advertisements.
About this Publication
The Franchise Memorandum is a collection of postings on summaries of recent legal developments of interest to franchisors brought to you by Lathrop GPM LLP.
To subscribe to monthly emails for The Franchise Memorandum, please click here.