Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Internet Sales Into Franchisee Territory Found Not a Breach of Contract, but Could Violate Covenant of Good Faith
Posted in Internet

A federal district court in California ruled last month on the important issues surrounding the right of a franchisor to sell products via the Internet into a franchisee’s territory. In Stillwell v. RadioShack Corp., 2009 WL 3697995 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 2, 2009), a group of RadioShack franchisees sued RadioShack in connection with its direct internet sales to consumers. The franchise agreements (which had been globally modified by a past class action suit) granted the franchisees an “Area of Primary Responsibility” (AOPR), in which RadioShack would “not open a company store . . . and within which [RadioShack] will not authorize the establishment of an Authorized Sales Center.” The franchisee group claimed that sales via RadioShack’s Web site to consumers located in the AOPRs constituted the establishment of either a company store or an Authorized Sales Center in violation of the agreements. The court disagreed, finding that the plain language of the agreements did not support such an interpretation. The court analogized Internet sales to catalogue/mail order sales, which RadioShack had conducted under the agreements for many years, and found that the franchise agreements prohibited RadioShack only from establishing “bricks and mortar” outlets in the AOPRs. RadioShack was granted summary judgment on the franchisees’ breach of contract claim. On the same facts, the court also rejected claims of unfair competition and tortious interference.

The court found, however, that allegations regarding RadioShack’s Internet sales could support a claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Although there is no covenant implied into franchise agreements under Texas law (which governed the agreements), the modified agreements explicitly incorporated the covenant, stating that neither party “shall do or fail to do anything which would deprive the other party of the benefits of” the agreement and that the parties “shall be governed by the standards of good faith and fair dealing.” Here, the franchisees alleged that RadioShack sold products on its Web site at prices that were “lower than the wholesale prices offered to franchisees” and that RadioShack informed online customers that they could make returns at franchised store locations. The court found that these practices, if proven, could violate RadioShack’s duty of good faith in the franchise agreements by depriving franchisees of the benefit of the franchise agreements.

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