Menu
Blog Banner Image

The Franchise Memorandum

New York Appellate Court Dismisses Royalties Claim Because of Franchisor’s Breach Under Preliminary Injunction
Posted in Contracts

A state appellate court in New York recently held a franchisor was not entitled to unpaid royalty fees because of its own breach of a franchise agreement reinstated by preliminary injunction. Integrity Real Estate Consultants v. Re/Max of New York, 2023 WL 2000464 (N.Y. App. Div. Feb. 15, 2023). The franchisee, Integrity Real Estate Consultants, requested Re/Max’s permission to relocate its office. Although Re/Max refused the request, Integrity moved anyway and Re/Max terminated the franchise agreement. Integrity sued Re/Max for breach of contract and the court preliminarily enjoined the termination. After Re/Max nevertheless removed Integrity from its regional advertising, internet marketing, and referral services, Integrity stopped paying royalties. Re/Max filed counterclaims against Integrity and a separate action against Integrity’s owners, seeking the unpaid royalties and attorneys’ fees from the suits. The owners counterclaimed against Re/Max, alleging that removing Integrity from Re/Max advertising breached the franchise agreement and violated the injunction. Re/Max prevailed at a bench trial and Integrity appealed.

The appellate court reversed, holding that Re/Max breached the franchise agreement by removing Integrity from its advertising at a time when the preliminary injunction required it to perform under the franchise agreement. While Integrity’s breach in moving would ordinarily have excused Re/Max from performing, the fact that the court reinstated the franchise agreement in its injunction removed that excuse. Accordingly, it was Re/Max’s breach that excused Integrity’s royalty payments. The court also reversed the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees, finding that Re/Max was not the prevailing party. Although the trial court’s determination that Integrity breached the franchise agreement by relocating was not appealed, the court held that the award of preliminary relief against Re/Max and the reversal of the award of royalties were sufficient to deprive Re/Max of its entitlement to fees.

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