Business Law Franchise Opinions

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This interpretive opinion is issued by the Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to section 31510 of the franchise investment law. It is applicable only to the transaction identified in the request therefor, and may not be relied upon in connection with any other transaction. Mr. Antonio J. GaudioAttorney at Law405 Grand Avenue, Room 208South San Francisco, CA 94082 Dear Mr. Gaudio: The request for… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Austin F. StevensAttorney at Law520 South El Camino RealSuite 428San Mateo, CA 94402 Dear Mr. Stevens: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated April 28, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Design Patent License and Distributorship Agreement (“Agreement”)… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Thomas H. ThorntonAttorney at LawSuite E14482 Beach BoulevardWestminister, CA 92683 Dear Mr. Thornton: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated April 26, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Z Z Corporation (“Z Z”) and persons referred… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Robert J. RedingtonAttorney at LawEadington and Howald1666 North Main Street, Suite 340168 North Brent StreetSanta Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Eadington: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated March 29, 1973, as supplemented by your letter dated April 25, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner.… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. J. Roger MyersAttorney at LawRains & MyersCommunity Professional Building168 North Brent StreetSuite 304Ventura, CA 93003 Dear Mr. Myers: The request for an interpretive opinion, contained in your letter dated January 25, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Sales Representative Agreements (“Agreements”) between… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This interpretive opinion is issued by the Commissioner of Corporations pursuant to section 31510 of the franchise investment law. It is applicable only to the transaction identified in the request therefor, and may not be relied upon in connection with any other transaction. Mr. George H. WaiteAttorney at Law134 E. Leatrice Ln. Anaheim, CA 92802 Dear Mr. Waite: The request for an interpretive opinion,… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Peter J. Palm IVPresident Computerized Real Indoor GolfCorporation200 Huntington Ave, Suite 1607Alexandra, VA 22303 Dear Mr. Palms: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 12, 1973, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Distributorship Contracts (“contracts”) between Computerized Real Indoor… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Sidney A. CopilowAttorney at Law1900 Avenue of the StarsSuite 1060Century City, CA 90067 Dear Mr. Copilow: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated November 13, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the offer and sale of a franchise by… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. James L. SealAttorney at LawEberle, Berlin, Xading,Musick, Peeler & GarrettOne Wilshire BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90017 Dear Mr. Seal: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated July 14, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether, under the circumstances described by you,… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner In reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. Lawrence & GrosbergAttorney at LawWolf & Dublin9454 Wilshire BoulevardBeverly Hills, CA 90212 Dear Mr. Grosberg: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated November 24, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated December 1, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters raise the question whether… Read more