Not exact matches
«The trial judge in that case felt there was a fundamental breach but it went to the court of appeal and the court said no, because even with a litany of complaints the court couldn't
find a substantial failure of consideration under the
contract because the
franchises still had the right to use the mark, the system and the brand,» she says.
It may be recalled that the Court made this
finding not on the basis of the duty to perform
contracts in good faith as set forth in article 1375 C.C.Q. but rather on the distinct theory of implied obligations, citing specifically the «nature» of the
franchise agreement and «equity» in article 1434 C.C.Q.»
We conclude, however, that the defense to arbitration
found in the California
Franchise Investment Law is not a ground that exists at law or in equity «for the revocation of any
contract,» but merely a ground that exists for the revocation of arbitration provisions in
contracts subject to the California
Franchise Investment Law.