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

British Columbia Supreme Court...

Posted by | 21 July 2018

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

British Columbia Supreme Court Rejects...

Posted by | 14 July 2018

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

Appeal Court Overturns Partial Summary...

Posted by | 7 July 2018

Author: Anthony Pugh, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In 2212886 Ontario Inc. v. Obsidian Group Inc. Read More

View All

What’s New

Law Works Welcomes New Student...

We are pleased to announce that Robert Jones has joined Law Works as a Student-at-Law for the 2018-2019 term. Robert obtained his J.D. Read More

Ben Hanuka Completes Gold Stan...

We are pleased to announce that Law Works’ principal, Ben Hanuka, has recently completed the Toronto Commercial Arbitration Society’s ‘Gold Standard© Course in... Read More

Court Cites with Approval Hanu...

We are pleased to announce that the Ontario Superior Court in London, in a decision released last year (which came to our attention only recently) quoted with approval Ben... Read More

View All