Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

The procedural decisions at the threshold of dispute resolution

Article Abstract:

Franchisors and franchisees in dispute have the choice of arbitration or litigation to remedy the situation but numerous decisions face both parties before this occurs. Arbitration is usually specified by the franchise agreement and is considered preferable because of its flexibility. Litigation requires considerations such as whether to file under federal or state laws, where to file if the two entities are in separate states and whether or not to seek a jury trial. Most of these choices should be considered before completing the franchise agreement.

Author: Dienelt, John F.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Franchise Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 8756-7962
Year: 1993
Analysis, Dispute resolution (Law)

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Choice of law: a new paradigm for franchise relationships

Article Abstract:

Franchise agreements' choice of law provisions should be applicable in contract-based claims situations, but deemed irrelevant in tort-based actions. Courts could then apply the most appropriate choice of law rules, tailored to specific claims' connection to franchise relationships. Courts can avoid inconsistent decisions by employing this paradigm to distinguish non-contractual claims arising from disclosure and registration laws from contractual claims arising from franchise relationship laws.

Author: Meaney, James A.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Franchise Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 8756-7962
Year: 1996
Conflict of laws

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


The FAA on a collision course with the unconscionability doctrine

Article Abstract:

The California Court of Appeal's decision in Bolter v. Superior Court creates conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act. The Court of Appeal decided that an out-of-state forum selection clause in a franchising contract made the contract unconscionable. This decision could confuse the issues of unconscionability and federal preemption.

Author: Miller, Charles G., Hart, Darryl A.
Publisher: American Bar Association
Publication Name: Franchise Law Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 8756-7962
Year: 2001
United States, California, Laws, regulations and rules, Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers, Preemption (Legislative power), Commercial arbitration agreements, Contracts, Unconscionable, Unconscionable contracts

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Contracts, Franchises, United States
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Penal politics at the threshold of the twenty-first century
  • Abstracts: Herbal garden of good and evil: the ongoing struggles of dietary supplement regulation. A bridge to far: the EPA's diesel sulfur rule and the increasing cost of fuels regulation under the Clean Air Act
  • Abstracts: The status-production sideshow: why the antidiscrimination laws are still a mistake. Out of the frying pan or into the fire? Race and choice of venue after Rodney King
  • Abstracts: The fifty-first session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. The 2000 judicial activity of the International Court of Justice
  • Abstracts: Disputing distributions in a shrinking commons: the case of drought in California. This bird has flown: the uncertain fate of wildlife on closed military bases
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.