New York Franchise Law Blog : Franchise Lawyer & Attorney Charles N. Internicola, Providing National Representation of Franchisees and Franchisors

Can you expand your business in the State of New Jersey through a "license agreement" without triggering New Jersey's franchise relationship laws?  (This is not a simple question and, unfortunately, the answer involves an evaluation of both "objective" and "subjective" factors.)

Short Answer:  

Yes, however you must discuss and evaluate the substance of  your license agreement, including your degree of control over your "licensees" operations and your economic influence over your "licensees" business.  

Long Answer :

The New Jersey Franchise Practices Act contains extensive prohibitions and restrictions governing (and in many cases modifying) the contractual relationship between franchisors and franchisees within the state.  Under New Jersey law the following criteria give rise to a franchise relationship and the potential imposition of franchise regulation:

1. The existence of a written agreement for a definite or indefinite period;
2. Providing for a license to use a trade name, trademark, service mark or related characteristic is granted; and
3. The existence of a community of interest in the marketing of goods or services at wholesale, retail, by lease, agreement, or otherwise.

With New Jersey's definition of a "franchise" heavily dependent on the existence of a "trademark license", your contemplated "license agreement" may have the unintended consequence of creating a regulated "franchise relationship".  To determine if your (1) written (2) trademark license agreement "crosses the line into franchise territory" you must evaluate the (3) community of interest criteria and determine whether or not your written license agreement "creates a community of interest [between you and your licensee] in the marketing of goods or services..."

This "community of interest" criteria is not defined by the New Jersey statute, involves a subjective determination and has been expansively evaluated by New Jersey courts in favor of finding a franchise relationship. To make this determination the courts look to the relationship between the parties and, among other things, the extent to which the licensee (franchisee) is economically dependent on the licensor (franchisor).  That is, where a licensee invests in a business that is largely dependent on a licensor's trademarks, products and/or services and where the licensor possesses significant influence over the licensees business, a "community of interest" (and thereby a franchise relationship) may exist.  Some of the factors that the courts have found to be relevant, include:

• The extent and nature of the licensees /franchisees business investment;
• The bargaining power between the parties;
• The licensees/franchisees economic dependence on the licensor's/franchisor's goods or services;
• The licensor's/franchisor's control over the goods and services offered by the licensee/franchisee; and 
• The licensees/franchisees ability to procure and/or offer goods supplied by a third-party.

Ultimately, any determination as to whether or not your New Jersey license agreement "crosses the line" into franchise territory will require a detailed evaluation of your written agreement and the economic relationship and legal rights that you create.  If your "license agreement" gives rise to a "franchise relationship", your licensee (and now franchisee) will be granted substantial protections and rights granted by the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act.    The key is to be aware of this "unintended consequence" when structuring and planning your "license" agreements and business relationships

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In the recent decision of Maintainco, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift America, Inc., the Appellate Division for the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey affirmed the application of the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act ("NJFPA") to the "constructive" termination of franchisee rights.  That is, actual termination is not required for a franchisee to invoke the protections of the NJFPA.

In the Maintainco decision, utilizing fundamental principals contract law, the Appellate Division held that that the franchisor / manufacturer's actions including (a) the threatened termination of the franchisee / dealer's rights, (b) the failure to disclose customary annual business plans to the franchisee, and (c) the grant of competing rights to a third party franchisee within the plaintiff franchisee's territory, constituted "constructive" acts of termination actionable under the NJFPA.  In the court's well reasoned decision, the following points are instructive:

• Franchisee's faced with the "constructive" termination of their franchise rights possess a claim for violation of the NJFPA;

• "Sound and non-discriminatory" business decisions are insufficient to justify the "non-renewal" of a New Jersey franchise. The failure to renew a franchise must be based on the franchisee's failure to "substantially meet the performance requirements of the franchisor";

•  Performance requirements imposed on franchisees must be "reasonable;

• Attorney fees are recoverable by a franchisee who successfully prosecutes a NJFPA claim; and

• Expert fees are not recoverable under the NJFPA.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Although the State of New Jersey is not a Franchise Registration State, over the years, the New Jersey State legislature has implemented laws pertaining to and affecting the legal rights between franchisors and franchisees.  The New Jersey Franchise Practices Act (NJSA 56:10-1)("NJFPA") adopts an extremely "paternalistic" approach to the franchisee / franchisor relationship and implements a number of legislated rights designed to benefit franchisees.

Both franchisors and franchisees with operations in the state of New Jersey should be aware of the NJFPA and its legislated rights, including NJFPA's  extremely vague "prohibition" against "unreasonable standards of performance".

Franchisor Standards of Performance must be "Reasonable".  Under the NJFPA franchisors are prohibited from imposing "unreasonable standards of performance on franchisees". This extremely vague "prohibition" is open to a broad range of interpretation and is designed, among other things, to prevent the termination of franchisee rights under the pre-text of "non-compliance".  

Relevance to Franchisees: This provision of the NJFPA, essentially, imposes a "reasonableness" standard when evaluating a franchisors attempted termination of a franchise relationship.  Under the NJFPA lawyers for the "terminated franchisee" are afforded the legal right to challenge, question and have the court evaluate the "reasonableness" of the franchisor's standards.

Relevance to Franchisors: Even if your system standards are well thought out, balanced and fair (as is typically the case with "successful" franchisors) when dealing with New Jersey franchisees, franchisors and their legal counsel must recognize that your system standards may be subject to interpretation and evaluation in a judicial proceeding.  To avoid unnecessary litigation costs and expenses, before terminating a franchise relationship take extra caution to document and communicate your performance standards and issues of non-compliance. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link