In Doyle v. Nutrilawn U.S., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48613 (W.D. Wash. May 17, 2010), a Washington federal court concluded that language in a noncompete clause making it applicable “following the termination of this Agreement for any reason whatsoever” applied upon the agreement’s expiration. The franchisee argued that the covenant only applied if the agreement was terminated, and that termination and expiration should be treated differently. After reviewing “the franchise agreement as a whole” and “giving its terms their ordinary meaning,” the court concluded that the noncompete covenant would apply, but refused to enforce it because the franchisor failed to present sufficient evidence that the covenant was violated.
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.