Business Law Franchise Opinions

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. David M. EpsteinEpstein, O’Neill & Utan Attorney at LawSuite 800, Scranton Life BuildingScraton, PA 18503 Dear Mr. Epstein: The request contained in your letter dated December 11, 1972, for reconsideration of the opinions expressed by us in our letter dated December 14, 1971 and commissioner’s Opinion No. 72/6F dated March 15,… 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. John L. RunftAttorney at LawEberle, Berlin, Xading,Turnbow & Gillespie, Chartered 711-1/2 Bannock StreetPost Office Box 1368Boise, ID 83701 Dear Mr. Runft: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated October 6, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated October 17, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your… 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 F. TylerAttorney at Law1660 California Federal Plaza5670 Wilshire BoulevardLos Angeles, CA 90036 Dear Mr. Tyler: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 12, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the arrangements between Redi-Strip, Inc., a California corporation… 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. The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 25, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so called Agreement between W, Inc. and X is a franchise within the definition of Section 31005 and subject to the provisions of the… 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. C. William Carlson, Jr.Attorney at Law18080 Beach BoulevardHuntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Carlson: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated August 29, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so-called Manufacturer’s and Agent’s Agreements (“agreement”) between Green Rain,… Read more

State of California Department of Corporations Brian R. Van Camp, CommissionerIn reply refer to: File No. _____ This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below. Mr. William J. AnthonyPresidentAmerican Educational Dimensions, Inc.2024 North BroadwaySanta Ana, CA 92706 Dear Mr. Anthony: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 1, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated September 14, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters raise questions regarding the application… 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. Gordon L. PetersonAttorney at LawSmyth, Roston & Pavitt550 Newport Center DriveNewport Beach, CA 92660 Dear Mr. Peterson: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 19, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the so-called Service Mark License Agreements between… 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. Richard K. LivettAttorney at Law1020 Prospect StreetSuite 415La Jolla, CA 92037 Dear Mr. Livett: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated August 25, 1972, as supplemented by your letter dated October 20, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letters raise the question whether the… 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. Phillip W. HarryAttorney at Law124 Locust StreetSanta Cruz, CA 95060 Dear Mr. Harry: Your letter dated September 22, 1972, requesting expression of an opinion concerning certain provisions of the Franchise Investment Law, addressed to the Secretary of State and forwarded to us by his office, has been considered by the… 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. C. L. SuttonUnion Discount Company ofCalifornia 1600 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Mr. Sutton: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 7, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Udisco, a Nevada corporation (“Udisco”), and persons… Read more