New York franchise agreements typically contain restrictive covenants against competition and/or a franchisee non-compete clause. Such provisions are meant to prevent franchisees, whom are granted rights by the franchisor to operate a business modeled on the Franchise Program from engaging in business activities in competition with the franchisor during or following termination of the franchise relationship. Most franchise agreements have a restrictive covenant term with a limited length post termination. Restrictive covenants in franchise agreements serve a number of purposes, including: Protecting the franchisor’s goodwill; Protecting the franchisor’s confidential information; Ensuring loyalty to the franchise network; and Preventing former franchisees from becoming future competition. Knowledge of local franchise law and jurisprudence is essential in assisting in enforcement of these clauses. In-term Covenants & Post-term Covenants: Franchise agreements shall often include two kinds of restrictive covenants: “in-term covenants” and “post-term covenants.” In-term covenants limit what a franchisee can do during the
Continue readingTag: New York Lawyers
Good New York Lawyers Beats Goliath Everyday In New York Courts
It can be daunting to think about suing anyone, let alone a huge department store like Macy’s. The same Macy’s that brings us Santa Claus and the opening of the holiday season with their annual Thanksgiving Day Parade televised nationally. The same Macy’s with department stores all over the United States. However, big guys can be beat in New York courts with the assistance of proactive, aggressive and nuanced New York lawyers. Now imagine if you are an immigrant with little command of English that was injured when you slipped and fell on a wet floor that Macy’s negligently failed to warn you about. Your life has been flipped upside down. You are in constant pain from your injuries, you lost your job and your mental outlook is in a downward spiral of fighting depression and anxiety. Because of all this the plaintiff was going through and the language barrier,
Continue readingEnforcing Foreign Judgments in New York: Personal Jurisdiction Necessary?
The New York State Court, in a case of first impression held that in personam jurisdiction is not necessary to recognize and enforce judgments in New York from a foreign court. The case that decided the matter is Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC v. Saad Trading, Contracting & Fin. Services Co., 36 Misc. 3d 389, 948 N.Y.S.2d 533 (Sup. Ct. 2012). The case is a case of first impression in New York and is a pivotal case that will, likely, lead to more cases like this case being heard in New York courts. The court, in this New York case, granted summary judgment in favor of the Abu Dhabi Bank and, thus, recognized the U.K. judgment. The facts of the case are typical in international judgment enforcement matters. The Abu Dhabi Bank is a company established in the United Arab Emirates. Saad Trading is a Saudi Arabian limited partnership. The
Continue readingSo you Want to Sue the New York Government? Act quick. Statute of Limitations/Notification Claims in New York
Commencing litigation, in New York City, against a private entity is an undertaking, but suing the New York City government in New York starts with a big time crunch. In New York, if you are suing any state or local government municipality or authority, you have, in most cases, 90 days to submit a Notice of Claim to the proper entity. The time period starts accruing from the date that the event triggering your claim occurred. In the Notice of Claim, you must give your personal information, the date, time and location of occurrence, a brief description of the incident in question and a brief description of the damages claimed. Get a New York lawyer to do this for immediately. This Notice of Claim, in New York, must then be delivered to the proper entity – or entities if you are not sure if one or many are involved –
Continue readingSubjective Phrases In Your Contracts
When negotiating your contracts, normally, you should stay away from subjective phrases or you may be leaving yourself open to a court’s interpretation. Subjective phrases are those that are shaded by feelings, experiences and depend upon one’s individual point of view. More often than not, they are loosely-defined words and phrases that may mean one thing to you, but something else to the other party. These phrases are like landmines in your contract, and must be avoided, if possible: Avoid phrases like “reasonable” or “best effort.” While attorneys may make a distinction between the two, courts have inconsistently applied the two, sometimes even merging the standards. While that would be alright if business goes smoothly, it could create protracted litigation if things turn bad. Avoid phrases like “material” and “substantial” unless you specifically define its meaning in your contract. Failure to define a term is an invitation for allowing a court
Continue reading