Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Idaho Supreme Court Upholds Judgment for Distributor on Protected Accounts

The Supreme Court of Idaho has upheld a decision in favor of an authorized distributor of business forms who complained of losses related to protected accounts. Thurston Enters. v. Safeguard Bus. Sys., 2019 WL 667966 (Idaho Feb. 19, 2019). Safeguard Business Systems, a supplier of business forms and products, had entered into a distributor agreement granting Thurston Enterprises the exclusive right to commissions on sales within a protected area. If another distributor sold Safeguard Systems products to a customer that had previously purchased products from Thurston, Safeguard would issue a “rotation notice” that would provide Thurston with the commission for the sale made by the other distributor. After Safeguard acquired a competitor and the competitor’s distributor agreements, Thurston agreed to sell certain protected accounts for Safeguard to transfer to a newly acquired distributor.

Thurston brought suit when it found out that the newly acquired distributor had been selling Safeguard Systems products to Thurston’s customers, and it argued that Safeguard fraudulently induced it to relinquish protected accounts without providing information about the commissions to which Thurston would have been entitled had it retained those accounts. The Idaho Supreme court affirmed the lower court’s judgment for Thurston, rejecting Safeguard’s argument that the protection clause only applied to sales of the same product to a particular customer. The court noted that the clause gave Thurston the right to commissions on any Safeguard Systems product sold to one of Thurston’s customers, regardless of whether Thurston had previously sold that same product to the customer. The court also upheld the fraud claim, rejecting Safeguard’s argument that Thurston was aware before selling account rights that the newly acquired distributor had made sales to those customers. The court noted that Safeguard never issued a “rotation notice” to Thurston, who therefore did not know that the new distributor had specifically made sales of Safeguard Systems products that would be subject to the protection clause.

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