Leading Canadian
FRANCHISE & BUSINESS LAW FIRM

341 Pizza (Bekah)

Full Case Name: Bekah v. Three for One Pizza (2003)

This court decision was among the earliest reported franchise disclosure decisions after the passage of Ontario’s franchise legislation, the Arthur Wishart Act (Franchise Disclosure), 2000.

It was the first Ontario decision that defined the term “franchise agreement” under the Act to include an agreement of purchase and sale.

The franchisor required that the franchisee purchase the store through a conventional purchase and sale agreement before entering into a franchise agreement. By structuring the transaction this way, the franchisor attempted to circumvent the disclosure requirements that the Act imposes on franchisors.

After the parties signed the purchase and sale agreement – before the purchase transaction closed and before the full franchise agreement was signed – the purchaser discovered problems with the franchise. He asked to cancel (rescind) the purchase and get his purchase money back.

The franchisor objected and took the position that the buyer was required to first close the purchase transaction, sign the franchise agreement, and only then attempt to rescind the purchase.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice agreed with the purchaser. It held that the purchase and sale agreement was a “franchise agreement” under the meaning of the Act, and that the purchaser was entitled to rescind the purchase without having to close the transaction and without signing the full franchise agreement.

This court decision was very influential in the early years of the development of franchise disclosure law in Ontario. The case had a significant impact on how franchise lawyers and franchisors structured sale and resale transactions – by making sure that franchisors provide a fulsome disclosure package before the parties sign any binding agreement relating to the sale, even an agreement of purchase and sale.

Back

Franchise Law Blog

Licensee Gets Summary Judgment for...

Posted by | 25 September 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Fyfe v. Read More

Enforcing Performance Standards in...

Posted by | 15 September 2018

This article, written by Ben Hanuka, was originally published by The Lawyer’s Daily on September 7, 2018. Click here to view the published article. Read More

Court Dismisses Franchisee’s...

Posted by | 5 September 2018

Author: Robert Jones, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Azmoon Trading Inc. v. Caffe Demetre Franchising Corp. Read More

View All

What’s New

Globe and Mail cites Ben Hanuk...

In a recent high-profile article on September 13, 2018, titled, “Tim Hortons parent settles with franchisee after locking him out of his restaurants,” the Globe and Mail... Read More

Anthony Pugh Joins Law Works a...

We are pleased to announce that Anthony Pugh, previously Student-at-Law at the firm, joined Law Works as an Associate effective October 1, 2018, upon his call to the Ontario... Read More

Law Works Welcomes New Student...

We are pleased to announce that Peter Radulescu has joined Law Works as a Student-at-Law for the 2018-2019 term. Peter obtained his J.D. and B.Sc. Read More

View All