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

B.C. Supreme Court dismisses...

Posted by | 1 October 2019

Author: Anthony Pugh and Sarah McMahon, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In Cactus World Holdings Ltd. v. Earl’s Holdings Ltd. et al. Read More

Ontario Court dismissed summary...

Posted by | 1 October 2019

Author: Anthony Pugh and Sarah McMahon, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In 2462192 Ontario Ltd. v. Read More

Ontario Court rules that a court...

Posted by | 18 September 2019

Author: Anthony Pugh and Sarah McMahon, Law Works P.C. Editor: Ben Hanuka, Law Works P.C. In the case of 2352392 Ontario Inc. et al. v. Vusumzi Msi et al. Read More

View All

What’s New

Ben Hanuka recognized in 2020 ...

We are pleased to announce that Ben Hanuka has been recognized in the 2020 Best Lawyers in Canada peer-rated directory in the Franchise Law category. Read More

Ben Hanuka to co-present at CF...

We are pleased to announce that Ben Hanuka will co-present at the Canadian Franchise Association’s annual Franchise Law Day on September 26, 2019. Read More

Sarah Ellen McMahon Joins Law ...

We are pleased to announce that Sarah Ellen McMahon joined Law Works as articling students as of July 8, 2019. Sarah obtained her J.D. Read More

View All