There are good and bad laws and the same can be seen in judgements. Complaints fall to deaf ears after the heat dissipates but the harsh realities remain lessons for us.
Given the flexible nature of equitable law, it is expectedly devoid of universally reliable guidelines especially on actions that attract estoppel.
This happened almost a decade ago. Franchisees of Mobil pleaded claims based on breach of contract, estoppel and contravention of provisions of the Trade Practices Act but all fell through.
Mobil was alleged to have unilaterally revoked its offer (that attainment of good performance would ensure the renewal of tenure) after representees followed up with acts of acceptance (a detrimental reliance).
The courts held that statements made by Mobil agents at a conference were vague, and did not amount to encouragement, nor were there elements of a legal relationship that could have given rise to reliable assumptions by the franchisees. Some said this was crap because precedence of finding estoppel as a sword did not require the existence of a formal contract.
Mobil’s success in all three major cases raised concerns among franchisees across industries and brand names. Great! Estoppel could not be counted upon to grant equitable relief!
Mobil franchiees whose tenure were discontinued by Mobil despite improvements made to the shop front and standard of service did not receive any compensation.
Of course there are many other prominent corporate names and banks that frequently triumph in litigation cases, albeit on small technicality. News reports do not provide indepth understanding of the pain small fries go through financially and emotionally when trampled upon in the highly competitive and inequitable business world.
- Copyright Reserved.
Permission required for reprint of any part of this article.
No comments:
Post a Comment