Minnesota Department Of Public Safety Franchise Agreement

Culligan Intern. Co. v. Culligan Water Conditioning of Carver County, Inc., United States District Court, D. Minnesota, Fourth Division, May 17, 1983, 563 F.Supp. 1265 (1. The probability of success of the merits – – The third data phase factor – the probability that the Movant succeeds on the merits – is the central subject in this case. To oppose his request for omission, the applicant does not have to prove a chance of success of more than 50%. With respect to assessing the applicant`s likelihood of success on the merits, the Court must consider two issues: (a) whether the 1972 franchise agreement was properly terminated; and (b) whether the defendants waived their rights, even though the 1972 franchise agreement was not properly terminated.

one. Cancellation of the 1972 franchise agreement – 1 The defendants argue that the March 11, 1981 notification that CIC would terminate the franchise was insufficient because it did not provide sufficient information to allow the defendants to heal their default. The accused claim that this improper termination was a violation of the Minnesota Franchise Act (The Act), Minn.Stat. No. 80C.14, abbreviated 2 (a) – (c). On the other hand, the applicant argues that the communication of 11 March 1981 was sufficient and that the deductible had been properly terminated. There has been no ruling on cases where advertising requirements are clearly defined. The law itself provides that the following acts, among others, are unfair practices: (a) stop or terminate a deductible without prior written notification explaining all reasons for termination or termination to the franchisee at least 60 days before termination or termination…. (b) End or terminate a franchise for a good reason. “Good cause” is the failure of the franchisee 1270 to meet the reasonable requirements imposed on him by the franchise…. (c) not renew a franchise unless the franchisee has been informed in writing of its intention not to extend at least 90 days in advance and has had the opportunity to recover its investment, unless the non-renewal is for good reason in the sense of point b).