Sentences with phrase «by the franchisee under»

Not exact matches

Riviera expanded by opening 4 more stores under his company's ownership and adding 12 more with franchisees, who paid an up - front fee of $ 20,000, plus 5 % of sales.

So he began franchising in 2008, under the name Pro Energy Consultants, and by mid-2009, the company had 29 units and franchisees «from engineers to real estate agents to golf pros.»

Actual results may vary materially from those expressed or implied by forward - looking statements based on a number of factors, including, without limitation: (1) risks related to the consummation of the Merger, including the risks that (a) the Merger may not be consummated within the anticipated time period, or at all, (b) the parties may fail to obtain shareholder approval of the Merger Agreement, (c) the parties may fail to secure the termination or expiration of any waiting period applicable under the HSR Act, (d) other conditions to the consummation of the Merger under the Merger Agreement may not be satisfied, (e) all or part of Arby's financing may not become available, and (f) the significant limitations on remedies contained in the Merger Agreement may limit or entirely prevent BWW from specifically enforcing Arby's obligations under the Merger Agreement or recovering damages for any breach by Arby's; (2) the effects that any termination of the Merger Agreement may have on BWW or its business, including the risks that (a) BWW's stock price may decline significantly if the Merger is not completed, (b) the Merger Agreement may be terminated in circumstances requiring BWW to pay Arby's a termination fee of $ 74 million, or (c) the circumstances of the termination, including the possible imposition of a 12 - month tail period during which the termination fee could be payable upon certain subsequent transactions, may have a chilling effect on alternatives to the Merger; (3) the effects that the announcement or pendency of the Merger may have on BWW and its business, including the risks that as a result (a) BWW's business, operating results or stock price may suffer, (b) BWW's current plans and operations may be disrupted, (c) BWW's ability to retain or recruit key employees may be adversely affected, (d) BWW's business relationships (including, customers, franchisees and suppliers) may be adversely affected, or (e) BWW's management's or employees» attention may be diverted from other important matters; (4) the effect of limitations that the Merger Agreement places on BWW's ability to operate its business, return capital to shareholders or engage in alternative transactions; (5) the nature, cost and outcome of pending and future litigation and other legal proceedings, including any such proceedings related to the Merger and instituted against BWW and others; (6) the risk that the Merger and related transactions may involve unexpected costs, liabilities or delays; (7) other economic, business, competitive, legal, regulatory, and / or tax factors; and (8) other factors described under the heading «Risk Factors» in Part I, Item 1A of BWW's Annual Report on Form 10 - K for the fiscal year ended December 25, 2016, as updated or supplemented by subsequent reports that BWW has filed or files with the SEC.

It will be operated by Branded Hotel Management under a franchisee agreement from Accor Hotels & Resorts.

Under its newly approved science - based target, McDonald's commits to work in partnership with its franchisees to reduce absolute GHG emissions related to its restaurants and offices by 36 % by 2030 from 2015 levels.

The recent Ontario Superior Court of Justice decision in 2337310 Ontario Inc. v. 2264145 Ontario Inc., 2014 ONSC 4370, addressed a partial summary judgment motion brought by the franchisee of a cafe seeking a declaration that it was entitled to exercise its right of rescission under the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 («the Act»).

Author: Evan Ivkovic, J.D., Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

He summarized the law, as stated by the Ontario Court of Appeal in 2001 in 978011 Ontario Ltd v Cornell Engineering Co, that it is unclear whether a franchisor is under a duty of fair dealing in relation to pre-contractual discussions with a prospective franchisee.

As noted by way of an introduction to the critical statutory franchise rescission remedy in Ontario in a Law Works Franchise Justice Blog Post on September 8, 2013, «Terminating a Franchise Agreement: A Primer ``, if a franchisor fails to deliver a disclosure document as required under Ontario's Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000 and its Regulation, General Ontario Regulation 581/00, a franchisee is entitled to cancel (legally «rescind») the entire purchase of the franchised business from the start of the transaction, including all franchise and related agreements, and claim a return of all his or her investment and losses.

As an example of the middle ground between a rescission claim on the one hand and no claim on the other hand, during the recent oral arguments of the appeal in the Raibex v. AllStar Wings in the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in October 2017, the esteemed bench repeatedly asked why some claims by franchisees should not be made under section 7, rather than under the rescission remedy.

In Hepburn v AlarmForce Industries Inc., released on October 6, 2017, by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in London, the court dismissed a franchisee's summary judgment motion for rescission and bad faith conduct under the Arthur Wishart Act because the factual issues were complex that require a trial (legally, there were «genuine issues requiring a trial»).

Century 21, for its part, says it has responded to franchisees» concerns by allowing franchisees to renew under the old or new franchise agreement.

The latter was an acquisition by Prudential franchisee Pickford So Cal L.P. and will operate under the name Prudential California Realty.

Affiliated Business Arrangment means an arrangement in which (A) a person who is in a position to refer business incident to or a part of a real estate settlement service involving a federally related mortgage loan, or an associate of such person, has either an affiliate relationship with or a direct or beneficial ownership interest of more than 1 percent in a provider of settlement services; and (B) either of such persons directly or indirectly refers such business to that provider or affirmatively influences the selection of that provider; and (8) the term «associate» means one who has one or more of the following relationships with a person in a position to refer settlement business: (A) a spouse, parent, or child of such person; (B) a corporation or business entity that controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with such person; (C) an employer, officer, director, partner, franchisor, or franchisee of such person; or (D) anyone who has an agreement, arrangement, or understanding, with such person, the purpose or substantial effect of which is to enable the person in a position to refer settlement business to benefit financially from the referrals of such business.