Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Forum-Selection Clause of Expired Supplier Agreements Not Enforceable

In Webb Candy, Inc. v. Walmart Stores, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55985 (D. Minn. June 7, 2010), the court examined the viability of a forum-selection clause after the expiration of the underlying distribution agreements. In this case, Walmart had one-year vendor contracts with two companies that allowed individual stores to buy merchandise directly from those two companies without contacting Walmart’s corporate office. Both of those contracts had expired, but the vendor identification numbers of the companies were still in effect. Webb Candy, a third-party vendor that did not have its own contract with Walmart, subsequently paid those companies for the use of their vendor identification numbers and delivered merchandise directly to several Walmart stores. Webb Candy did not receive payment for the merchandise and sued Walmart in Minnesota. Walmart then moved to enforce the Arkansas forum-selection clause that was originally in the now-expired contracts with the two other companies. The plaintiffs conceded that had the agreements not expired, the clause would have been enforceable.

Walmart argued that the expired contracts (and therefore the forum-selection clause) still governed the transactions under the theories that the terms of the contracts were evergreen (they applied to all sales, even those made years after expiration), the expiration dates were waived by course of performance, and continuing to do business after expiration created a new contract under the same terms. The court was unconvinced. Noting the “sizable gap between the contracts’ expiration dates and the plaintiff’s deliveries, the paucity of evidence about the parties’ course of performance before and after expiration, the contract’s specific, repeated assurances that renewal would require a written agreement, […and the lack of clarity that the parties] intended the forum-selection clause to carry forward into [any implied or new] contract,” the court denied Walmart’s motion to dismiss or to transfer to an Arkansas court.

Email LinkedIn Twitter Facebook

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

Topics

Archives

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

Blog Authors