Business Law
Business Law Annual Review 2017
Content
- 2016 Developments in Internet and Privacy Law
- Agribusiness Committee 2016 Year In Review
- Annual Health Law Review for 2016
- Annual Update of Alternative Dispute Resolution Cases
- Banks Face Wave of Website Accessibility Claims Under the Ada
- Bln Editorial Board: Message from the Editor
- Bls Opinions Committee: Review of Current Developments for 2016
- Business Law News Editorial Team
- Business Law News Table of Contents
- Describing the Collateral Subject to a "Blanket" Lien, or How to Knit a Big, Soft, Warm Blanket
- Executive Committee: Message from the Chair
- Executive Committee of the Business Law Section 2016-2017
- New Report on Third-Party Closing Opinions for California Limited Liability Companies and Partnerships About To Be Published
- Recent Developments Affecting Insolvency and Commercial Finance in California and the Ninth Circuit
- Selected 2016 Developments in Corporate Law
- Standing Committee Officers of the Business Law Section 2016-2017
- Update on California Finance Lenders Law
- Despite Successes in Fending Off Claims Based on Actual Authority, Franchisors Still Face Difficulties in Defending Claims Based on Ostensible Authority
Despite Successes in Fending Off Claims Based on Actual Authority, Franchisors Still Face Difficulties in Defending Claims Based on Ostensible Authority
Charles G. Miller
Charles G. Miller is a trial attorney, mediator, and arbitrator with Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller in San Francisco, California. He is a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law and has served on the State Bar Business Section’s Franchise Law Committee on several occasions.
The recent settlement last year of a class action against McDonald’s Corp. for $3.75 million based on claims that McDonald’s Corp. was liable for Labor Code violations of its franchisee brings home the dilemma that many franchise companies are facing. See, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mcdonalds-settle-ment-idUSKBN12V1NJ, an October 31, 2016 Reuters article describing the settlement in Ochoa v. McDonald’s Corp. The settlement is the culmination of a disturbing trend in franchise vicarious liability cases that has emerged in the past several years, where the courts have blindly accepted ostensible authority arguments to defeat what should have been summary judgment motions in the franchisor’s favor on the issue of ostensible authority. This article briefly discusses the legal landscape and offers possible drafting solutions to the business lawyer.