Whataburger Franchise Terms Of Agreement

Whataburger argues that the court erred in referring to paragraphs 5.01 and 6.01 as the basis for the creation of increased duties of “openness, loyalty and good faith.” The Supreme Court expressly rejected the inclusion of a general alliance of trust and fair trade in Texas contracts. English v. Fischer, 660 S.W.2d 521, 522 (Tex. 1983). “There is no general duty of good faith and fair trade in ordinary and long trade transactions. Formosa Plastics Corp. v. Presidio Eng`rs – Contractors, Inc., 960 S.W.2d 41, 52 (Tex. 1998). In addition, the Supreme Court expressly ruled that the franchised relationship is not a “special relationship” with increased tariffs. See Crim Truck – Tractor Co. v. Navistar Int`l Transp.

Corp., 823 S.W.2d 591, 595-96 (Tex. 1992); See also Subaru of Am., Inc. v. David McDavid Nissan, Inc., 84 S.W.3d 212, 225 (Tex. 2002) (in recognition of the Texas legislature created an exception to this general rule for car dealers, but the declaration of this exception does not apply to all franchise agreements). The nature of the franchisor/franchise`s general relationship therefore does not result in an increase in tariffs in this case. The duty to act reasonably was also addressed in this notice.   Although the scope and application of the adequacy clause was widely disputed, Whataburger did not withdraw its obligation to act reasonably from the transaction agreement and the amended franchise agreement.   It submitted throughout the litigation that the adequacy clause does not require it to renew existing contracts or grant new franchise sites.

  But even with these arguments, Whataburger did not argue that the adequacy clause was invalid or otherwise non-binding.   In our analysis of the rights and obligations of the parties in the written agreements, we have concluded that the adequacy clause does not apply to Whataburger`s decision to renew existing contracts or grant new franchise sites.   Estoppel`s defence, relied upon by BurgerWorks, rests almost exclusively on an alleged obligation not to unreasonably deny applications for new franchise sites.   Having come to the conclusion that such an obligation does not exist, we now come to the conclusion that Estoppel`s defence contains no factual questions that would preclude a summary judgment for Whataburger. Here is the frequently asked question (faq) about the Whataburg franchise: When confirming the court decision in favor of WOA (in part), the regional court on the specific language of the settlement agreement. In particular, the Amtsgericht decided that the clear language in the settlement agreement that stipulates that WOA has the “exclusive right to build, operate or develop” The restaurants of Whataburg means precisely that. There is no need for prior location authorization from Whataburger.


Comments are closed.