 |
Wiki Law School will soon be moving! Please update your bookmarks. Our future address is www.wikilawschool.org |
Zapatha v. Dairy Mart: Difference between revisions
From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
*Because Zapatha wouldn't sign the new contract, Dairy terminated the contract | *Because Zapatha wouldn't sign the new contract, Dairy terminated the contract | ||
* | * | ||
|procedural_history=* Zapatha sued Dairy in state superior court. | |procedural_history=*Zapatha sued Dairy in state superior court. | ||
*Zapatha won. | |||
|issues=Is a contract provision allowing termination without cause ''per se'' unconscionable? | |||
|arguments=* Zapatha argued that the termination of the franchise was unconscionable. | |arguments=* Zapatha argued that the termination of the franchise was unconscionable. | ||
|holding=No; a contract provision allowing for termination without cause isn't ''per se'' unconscionable, & un-conscionability is decided on a case-by-case basis. | |||
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | |case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link | ||
|link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/zapatha-v-dairy-mart-inc | |link=https://www.quimbee.com/cases/zapatha-v-dairy-mart-inc | ||
Revision as of 16:44, February 3, 2024
| Zapatha v. Dairy Mart | |
| Court | Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court |
|---|---|
| Citation | 408 N.E.2d 1370, 381 Mass. 284 |
| Date decided | August 5, 1980 |
Facts
- Zapatha = applicant to become a franchisee of a convenience store in May 1973
- Dairy Mart, Inc. = "Dairy" = Dairy Mart = a franchise convenience store chain
- In November 1973, Zapatha's application was approved
- Zapatha would use Dairy's trademark
- Dairy would pay Zapatha's rent
- Zapatha would pay Dairy a % of its gross sales
- The termination clause in the contract allowed either party to terminate after 12 months with a 90-days notice
- In November 1977, Dairy presented Zapatha with a new franchise contract with terms less favorable to Zapatha.
- Because Zapatha wouldn't sign the new contract, Dairy terminated the contract
Procedural History
- Zapatha sued Dairy in state superior court.
- Zapatha won.
Issues
Is a contract provision allowing termination without cause per se unconscionable?
Arguments
- Zapatha argued that the termination of the franchise was unconscionable.
Holding
No; a contract provision allowing for termination without cause isn't per se unconscionable, & un-conscionability is decided on a case-by-case basis.
Resources
