Stephanie could only laugh that the arrogant had been brought low. As predicted, the argument succeeded and she got what she sought, a waiver of attorney-client privilege and the embarrassment of the overly aggressive franchisor. For want of a motion, all of the files were laid bare and subject to discovery. Says Stephanie, “they should have filed the motion.”
Stephanie represents the franchisee, who claims he was terminated without the right to properly cure. Yes, the franchisor sent the notice of default. Yes, the franchisor gave an opportunity to cure. But the issue became whether the franchisee got the full benefit of the cure period, that is, did the franchisor grant enough time to cure. And wait—you see it coming—why didn’t the franchisor give enough time to cure?
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
