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. W. Wagner Crim, PresidentZapco Distributing Company470 Alabama Street San Francisco, CA 94110 Dear Mr. Crim: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated August 23, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Zapco Distributing Company, a California corporation (“Zapco”),… 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. G. Scott MillerAttorney at LawThompson & MillerWhittier, CA 90608 Dear Mr. Miller: Your request for an expression of our opinion filed on July 27, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. You have raised the question whether the agreements between Real Estate Sales Corporation of America, 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. Mr. A. James ScholzAttorney at Law1366 El Camino RealMilbrae, CA 94030 Dear Mr. Scholz: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated September 15, 1971, as supplemented by your letter dated May 22, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the distributorship… 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. Chester BriscoAttorney at LawCourthouse Professional Building615 Civic Center Drive West – Suite 225Santa Ana, CA 92702 Dear Mr. Brisco: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated June 27, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the proposed deviation in… 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. Joseph H. TauschJoseph H. Tausch and AssociatesSuite A, 6152 Mission Gorge RoadSan Diego, CA 92120 Dear Mr. Tausch: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 22, 1972, as supplemented by your letters dated April 13, 1972 and May 8, 1972, 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. Larry E. MillerVice PresidentEMPLOYERS OVERLOADEO Building8040 Cedar AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55420 Dear Mr. Miller: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 20, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the contracts between Employers Overload, a Minnesota corporation (“Overload”), and persons… 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. Jerald A. InfantinoAttorney at LawCarroll, Breen, Paixotto& Infantino P.O. Box 712Santa Clara, CA 95050 Dear Mr. Infantino: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated April 5, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the agreements between Neal’s Earpiercing (“Neal’s”) and various… 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. Bernard J. O’MalleyAttorney at LawConnolly, O’Malley & Connolly420-430 Royal Union BuildingDes Moines, IA 50309 Dear Mr. O’Malley: The request for an expression of our opinion contained in your letter dated April 12, 1972, as supplemented by your undated letter filed in this office on May 5, 1972 and your letter… 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. Jesse W. JackAttorney at LawJack, Ruiz, Mallen & Sullivan941 West Hedding StreetSan Jose, CA 95126 Dear Mr. Jack: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 16, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Lease Agreement entered into 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. Bertrand M. Lanchner, SecretaryVideorecord Corporation of AmericaVideorecord BuildingWestport, CO 06880 Dear Mr. Lanchner: The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated February 9, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the receipt of deposits by Videorecord Corporation of America (“Videorecord”) from… Read more