A federal court in Illinois recently dismissed a distributor’s claim that a competitor committed tortious interference by encroaching on the distributor’s exclusive distribution territory because the distributor failed to demonstrate—through draft agreements and other communications with the manufacturer—valid exclusive distribution rights. Midland Distrib., Inc. v. Zest US Wholesale, Inc., 2021 WL 4745265 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 12, 2021). Relying on several draft agreements and communications between the parties, Midland claimed that it had entered into an exclusive distribution agreement with manufacturer Haddad & Sons Co. to sell Haddad’s snack chips throughout much of the US. Midland sued Zest for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage after it became aware that Zest was selling Haddad’s chips within Midland’s allegedly exclusive territory.
For its claim to survive, Midland had to plead facts sufficient to establish that it and Haddad had agreed on all of the essential terms of an exclusive distribution agreement, which under Illinois law include a durational term, sales quota, and territory. Although draft agreements and other communications between the parties demonstrated some understanding as to the essential terms, no single draft or communication encapsulated the entire agreement. The court refused to “string together” communications to create a contract. Furthermore, the court found that, based on their communications, the parties intended and expected to enter into a formal written agreement to finalize their understanding—yet no such agreement was signed. Without an enforceable exclusive distribution agreement, Midland’s claim against Zest failed.
Justin litigates commercial disputes across the country on behalf of both corporations and individuals. He regularly counsels and represents some of the nation’s most prominent franchisors on matters central to the integrity ...
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.