Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc.

California Court of Appeal
1967 Cal. App. LEXIS 1667, 248 Cal. App. 2d 610, 56 Cal. Rptr. 728 (1967)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A franchisor may be held liable for the contractual obligations of its franchisee as an undisclosed principal if the franchise agreement grants the franchisor the right to exercise control over the franchisee's day-to-day operations beyond what is necessary to protect its trade name and goodwill.

Facts:

Arthur Murray, Inc. was a corporation that licensed its trade name and dancing method to franchisees.
Arthur Murray, Inc. entered into a franchise agreement with Burkin, Inc., allowing Burkin, Inc. to operate a dancing school in San Diego under the 'Arthur Murray' name.
The agreement gave Arthur Murray, Inc. the right to control Burkin, Inc.'s operations, including employment decisions, minimum tuition rates, choice of financial institutions, studio location and decor, advertising, and overall business policies.
A plaintiff entered into five separate contracts with the 'Arthur Murray School of Dancing' in San Diego for dancing lessons.
The plaintiff prepaid for these lessons.
The dancing lessons for which the plaintiff had prepaid were never provided by the San Diego studio.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiff sued Arthur Murray, Inc. in the trial court to recover the amount prepaid for dancing lessons.
The trial court found that Burkin, Inc. was the agent of Arthur Murray, Inc. and entered a judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendant, Arthur Murray, Inc., as the appellant, appealed the judgment to the intermediate court of appeal.

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 agreement create an agency relationship, making the franchisor liable as a principal for its franchisee's contracts, when the agreement grants the franchisor extensive control over the franchisee's daily business operations?

Opinions:

Majority - Coughlin, J.

Yes, a franchise agreement creates an agency relationship when it grants the franchisor extensive control over the franchisee's daily business operations. The court determined that whether an agency relationship exists depends on the intention of the parties as determined by the written agreement and surrounding circumstances, with the right to control being a key factor. The declarations of the parties within the agreement disclaiming an agency relationship are not controlling. Here, the court found that the controls retained by Arthur Murray, Inc. 'extended beyond those necessary to protect and maintain its trade mark, trade name and good will, and covered day to day details of the San Diego studio’s operation.' These controls included dictating employment, finances, advertising, and general business policies, effectively depriving the franchisee of any true independence. Because Arthur Murray, Inc. retained such comprehensive control, an agency relationship was created by legal effect, making it liable as an undisclosed principal for the contractual obligations incurred by its agent, Burkin, Inc.

Analysis:

This case is significant in franchise law as it establishes that the substance of the relationship, specifically the degree of control exercised by the franchisor, will triumph over the form or labels used in the franchise agreement. It serves as a caution to franchisors that they cannot completely insulate themselves from liability while simultaneously micromanaging their franchisees. The decision forces franchisors to strike a careful balance between exerting sufficient control to protect their brand integrity and ceding enough operational independence to their franchisees to avoid creating an agency relationship and incurring vicarious liability.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Nichols v. Arthur Murray, Inc. (1967)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature