Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc.
216 Va. 490 (1975)
Rule of Law:
A franchise agreement that establishes brand standards to ensure uniformity does not create a principal-agent relationship if the franchisor does not retain control over the day-to-day methods and details of the franchisee's operations.
Facts:
- Holiday Inns, Inc. (defendant) entered into a franchise license agreement with Betsy-Len Motor Corporation (Betsy-Len).
- The agreement allowed Betsy-Len to operate a motel in Danville using the Holiday Inn trade name and system in exchange for fees.
- The agreement required Betsy-Len to adhere to certain standards, such as constructing the motel according to approved plans, using Holiday Inn branding, and following specified 'Rules of operation'.
- Kyran Murphy (plaintiff), a guest at the motel operated by Betsy-Len, was injured on August 24, 1971.
- Murphy slipped and fell on a walkway where water draining from an air conditioner had been allowed to accumulate.
- The license agreement did not give Holiday Inns the power to control the daily maintenance of the premises, set customer rates, hire or fire employees, or supervise Betsy-Len's daily business operations.
Procedural Posture:
- Kyran Murphy filed a motion for judgment against Holiday Inns, Inc. in the trial court.
- Holiday Inns, Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing it did not own or operate the motel but merely licensed its name to the operator, Betsy-Len Motor Corporation.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Holiday Inns, Inc., finding that no principal-agent relationship existed.
- Murphy, the plaintiff, appealed the trial court's final order to the Supreme Court of Virginia.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a franchise license agreement create a principal-agent relationship where the agreement regulates brand standards but does not grant the franchisor control over the franchisee's day-to-day business operations?
Opinions:
Majority - Poff, J.
No. A franchise agreement does not establish a principal-agent relationship if it does not grant the franchisor control over the methods and details of the franchisee's work. The court found that the critical test for agency is the nature and extent of control agreed upon. Here, the regulatory provisions in the franchise agreement were intended to achieve system-wide standardization of business identity and service for the benefit of both parties, not to control the day-to-day operations of the motel. Holiday Inns lacked power over essential operational details such as daily maintenance, customer rates, business expenditures, and employee management (hiring, firing, wages, supervision). Because Betsy-Len retained all customary management controls and responsibilities, the relationship was that of a licensor-licensee, not principal-agent.
Analysis:
This case is significant for clarifying the application of agency principles to the franchise business model. It establishes that a franchisor can impose extensive regulations on a franchisee to protect its brand and ensure uniformity without creating vicarious liability for the franchisee's torts. The decision distinguishes between control over brand standards and control over the daily operational conduct of the business. This precedent provides a legal framework that allows franchising to thrive by protecting franchisors from liability so long as they do not exercise control over the 'methods or details' of the franchisee's work.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Murphy v. Holiday Inns, Inc. (1975)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"