Franchising (& Distribution) Currents

The court concluded that the parties' conflicting interpretations of the agreement were both reasonable. [...] under Ohio law, which governed the agreement, the court looked to extrinsic evidence and the agreement as a whole to determine the parties' intentions regarding termination.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inFranchise law journal Vol. 30; no. 4; pp. 257 - 270
Main Authors Coleman, Ronald T., Anderson, Corby Cochran, Yatchak, Sarah J.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Chicago American Bar Association Forum on Franchising 01.04.2011
American Bar Association
Subjects
Agreements
Antitrust
Appellate courts
Arbitration
Breach of contract
Business expenses
Case dismissal
Competition
Conspiracy
Contract provisions
Evidence
Federal district courts
Franchise agreements
Franchisees
Franchises
Franchising
Fraud
Judges & magistrates
Jurisdiction
Manufacturers
Market shares
Payroll taxes
Petitions
Plaintiffs
Provisions
Resale price maintenance
Restraint of trade
State court decisions
Statutory law
Trials
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:The court concluded that the parties' conflicting interpretations of the agreement were both reasonable. [...] under Ohio law, which governed the agreement, the court looked to extrinsic evidence and the agreement as a whole to determine the parties' intentions regarding termination.
ISSN:8756-7962
2163-2154