Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

Nebraska Supreme Court Upholds Contractual Provision Allowing Franchisee to Rebrand
Posted in Contracts

The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the decision of a state district court that a contract permitted a fuel retailer to rebrand several of its gas stations and sell competitor-branded fuel. Ray Anderson, Inc. v. Buck’s, Inc., 300 Neb. 434 (July 6, 2018). Ray Anderson, Inc., the operator of retail gas stations in Omaha, Nebraska, and Buck’s, Inc., a distributor and “jobber” of BPbranded fuel, entered into a fuel supply contract, through which Anderson sold BP-branded fuel at its stations. A rider entitled the Electronic Dealer Delivery Plan (EDDP) was incorporated into the agreement. Several years later, Anderson negotiated with a BP competitor to sell Shell Oil-branded fuel at four of Anderson’s gas stations. Buck’s immediately directed Anderson to cease and desist from selling the Shell Oil-branded fuel, claiming it would constitute a breach of their agreement. Anderson filed a declaratory judgment action for a ruling that it was not prohibited from rebranding under the agreement. Buck’s counterclaimed and also sought damages for anticipatory repudiation. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The district court denied Buck’s summary judgment motion, concluding that nothing within either the agreement or the EDDP prohibited Anderson from selling the Shell-Oil branded fuel.

In affirming the lower court’s decision, the Supreme Court of Nebraska rejected Buck’s argument that the agreement required Anderson to sell BP-branded fuel purchased from Buck’s and therefore indirectly prohibited rebranding of the four stations. The court observed that the EDDP clearly stated that Anderson was not precluded from selling competitive brand products. The EDDP also stated that to the extent any conflict arose between the terms of the agreement and the EDDP, the terms of the EDDP controlled. Noting that contracts made in reference to and as part of the same transaction must be construed together, the court concluded that the terms of the EDDP were controlling, and that Anderson could rebrand the four gas stations and sell the Shell-Oil branded fuel.

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