Franchising (& Distribution) Currents

[...] the court did not allow plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege that ExxonMobil violated the MFIL by failing to provide it "with a statement disclosing whether the [plaintiff] would receive an exclusive territory." [...] Atkins and Campbell could not have breached the purchase agr...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Franchise law journal 2009-10, Vol.29 (2), p.113-131
Main Authors: Appleby, Bethany L., Einhorn, Robert M., Beyer, David A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Agreements
Antitrust
Arbitration
Breach of contract
Buses
Contract breaches
Defendants
Disputes
District courts
Evidence
Federal court decisions
Federal district courts
Fees
Franchise agreements
Franchisees
Franchises
Fraud
Gasoline
Injunctions
Noncompetition agreements
Petroleum
Pizza
Plaintiffs
Provisions
Public interest
State court decisions
State laws
Summary judgments
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by
cites
container_end_page 131
container_issue 2
container_start_page 113
container_title Franchise law journal
container_volume 29
creator Appleby, Bethany L.
Einhorn, Robert M.
Beyer, David A.
description [...] the court did not allow plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege that ExxonMobil violated the MFIL by failing to provide it "with a statement disclosing whether the [plaintiff] would receive an exclusive territory." [...] Atkins and Campbell could not have breached the purchase agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not parties to the agreement.
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_207374244</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>29542271</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>29542271</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j494-d8a90a4e0b7341b64ecdf1af2c30558528bc64fe30018b64ccc5fa1e05e551143</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjUFLwzAYhoMoWKc_QSiC4g6B5MuXJj1K3XQw8LJ7SbNEUzSdSXrw3zuZp-fwPrzPGamAN4ICl3hOKq1kQ1XbwCW5ynlkDLQAVZH7dTLRfoQc4nv9-FA_h1xSGOYSprisuzklF0u-JhfefGZ3888F2a1Xu-6Vbt9eNt3Tlo7YIt1r0zKDjg1KIB8adHbvufFgBZNSS9CDbdA7wRjXx9laK73hjkknJecoFuTudHtI0_fscunHaU7xWOyBKaEQ8E-6PUljLlPqDyl8mfTTQysRQHHxC9dvRKI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>207374244</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Franchising (&amp; Distribution) Currents</title><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><creator>Appleby, Bethany L. ; Einhorn, Robert M. ; Beyer, David A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Appleby, Bethany L. ; Einhorn, Robert M. ; Beyer, David A.</creatorcontrib><description>[...] the court did not allow plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege that ExxonMobil violated the MFIL by failing to provide it "with a statement disclosing whether the [plaintiff] would receive an exclusive territory." [...] Atkins and Campbell could not have breached the purchase agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not parties to the agreement.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-7962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-2154</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Antitrust ; Arbitration ; Breach of contract ; Buses ; Contract breaches ; Defendants ; Disputes ; District courts ; Evidence ; Federal court decisions ; Federal district courts ; Fees ; Franchise agreements ; Franchisees ; Franchises ; Fraud ; Gasoline ; Injunctions ; Noncompetition agreements ; Petroleum ; Pizza ; Plaintiffs ; Provisions ; Public interest ; State court decisions ; State laws ; Summary judgments</subject><ispartof>Franchise law journal, 2009-10, Vol.29 (2), p.113-131</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2009 American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Fall 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/29542271$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/29542271$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,58238,58471</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Appleby, Bethany L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Einhorn, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beyer, David A.</creatorcontrib><title>Franchising (&amp; Distribution) Currents</title><title>Franchise law journal</title><description>[...] the court did not allow plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege that ExxonMobil violated the MFIL by failing to provide it "with a statement disclosing whether the [plaintiff] would receive an exclusive territory." [...] Atkins and Campbell could not have breached the purchase agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not parties to the agreement.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Antitrust</subject><subject>Arbitration</subject><subject>Breach of contract</subject><subject>Buses</subject><subject>Contract breaches</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>District courts</subject><subject>Evidence</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Federal district courts</subject><subject>Fees</subject><subject>Franchise agreements</subject><subject>Franchisees</subject><subject>Franchises</subject><subject>Fraud</subject><subject>Gasoline</subject><subject>Injunctions</subject><subject>Noncompetition agreements</subject><subject>Petroleum</subject><subject>Pizza</subject><subject>Plaintiffs</subject><subject>Provisions</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State laws</subject><subject>Summary judgments</subject><issn>8756-7962</issn><issn>2163-2154</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNotjUFLwzAYhoMoWKc_QSiC4g6B5MuXJj1K3XQw8LJ7SbNEUzSdSXrw3zuZp-fwPrzPGamAN4ICl3hOKq1kQ1XbwCW5ynlkDLQAVZH7dTLRfoQc4nv9-FA_h1xSGOYSprisuzklF0u-JhfefGZ3888F2a1Xu-6Vbt9eNt3Tlo7YIt1r0zKDjg1KIB8adHbvufFgBZNSS9CDbdA7wRjXx9laK73hjkknJecoFuTudHtI0_fscunHaU7xWOyBKaEQ8E-6PUljLlPqDyl8mfTTQysRQHHxC9dvRKI</recordid><startdate>20091001</startdate><enddate>20091001</enddate><creator>Appleby, Bethany L.</creator><creator>Einhorn, Robert M.</creator><creator>Beyer, David A.</creator><general>American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</general><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X5</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8A3</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20091001</creationdate><title>Franchising (&amp; Distribution) Currents</title><author>Appleby, Bethany L. ; Einhorn, Robert M. ; Beyer, David A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j494-d8a90a4e0b7341b64ecdf1af2c30558528bc64fe30018b64ccc5fa1e05e551143</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Antitrust</topic><topic>Arbitration</topic><topic>Breach of contract</topic><topic>Buses</topic><topic>Contract breaches</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>District courts</topic><topic>Evidence</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Federal district courts</topic><topic>Fees</topic><topic>Franchise agreements</topic><topic>Franchisees</topic><topic>Franchises</topic><topic>Fraud</topic><topic>Gasoline</topic><topic>Injunctions</topic><topic>Noncompetition agreements</topic><topic>Petroleum</topic><topic>Pizza</topic><topic>Plaintiffs</topic><topic>Provisions</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State laws</topic><topic>Summary judgments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Appleby, Bethany L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Einhorn, Robert M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Beyer, David A.</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Proquest Entrepreneurship</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Entrepreneurship Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>One Business (ProQuest)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Franchise law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Appleby, Bethany L.</au><au>Einhorn, Robert M.</au><au>Beyer, David A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Franchising (&amp; Distribution) Currents</atitle><jtitle>Franchise law journal</jtitle><date>2009-10-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>29</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>113</spage><epage>131</epage><pages>113-131</pages><issn>8756-7962</issn><eissn>2163-2154</eissn><abstract>[...] the court did not allow plaintiff to amend its complaint to allege that ExxonMobil violated the MFIL by failing to provide it "with a statement disclosing whether the [plaintiff] would receive an exclusive territory." [...] Atkins and Campbell could not have breached the purchase agreement or the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing because they were not parties to the agreement.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</pub><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 8756-7962
ispartof Franchise law journal, 2009-10, Vol.29 (2), p.113-131
issn 8756-7962
2163-2154
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_207374244
source EBSCOhost Business Source Ultimate; JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection
subjects Agreements
Antitrust
Arbitration
Breach of contract
Buses
Contract breaches
Defendants
Disputes
District courts
Evidence
Federal court decisions
Federal district courts
Fees
Franchise agreements
Franchisees
Franchises
Fraud
Gasoline
Injunctions
Noncompetition agreements
Petroleum
Pizza
Plaintiffs
Provisions
Public interest
State court decisions
State laws
Summary judgments
title Franchising (& Distribution) Currents
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T20%3A18%3A47IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Franchising%20(&%20Distribution)%20Currents&rft.jtitle=Franchise%20law%20journal&rft.au=Appleby,%20Bethany%20L.&rft.date=2009-10-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=113&rft.epage=131&rft.pages=113-131&rft.issn=8756-7962&rft.eissn=2163-2154&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E29542271%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j494-d8a90a4e0b7341b64ecdf1af2c30558528bc64fe30018b64ccc5fa1e05e551143%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=207374244&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=29542271&rfr_iscdi=true