1

Business Law

Student’s Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Professor’s Name

Date
 2

Case 1: DUNKIN' DONUTS FRANCHISE RESTAURANTS LLC v. SANDIP, INC.

1. If Sandip had a willing buyer with sufficient cash to finance the operation, why would

Dunkin Donuts reject the buyer?

Dunkin Donuts adopted a concept to implement that helped it decide whether to accept or

reject the prospective buyer. The technique involved a two-phase analysis in evaluating the

situation. First, Dunkin Donuts engaged in a detailed assessment to determine whether the

franchise would reach a break-even point during the next financial year. To complete the

assessment, he uses all the projected cash flows and liabilities for the business. If the forecast

showed that the store would make some losses, the decision would reject the proposed buyer's

offer. However, if the business forecasts showed that business would break even, this gave way

for the next analysis step. The second phase involved analyzing the financial condition of the

proposed buyer to determine his ability to acquire and run the store successfully.

Dunkin Donuts would still reject a financially stable buyer with adequate funds to buy

and run the operations if the first analysis step indicated that the store was not in a position to

break even in the coming year.

2. Aren’t the terms of the franchise agreement favorable to Dunkin’ Donuts?

The terms of the franchise agreement allow that the franchisor can terminate the contract

if the franchisee violates the terms of the agreement. The termination clauses provide that the

franchisor must give 30 days prior notice to the franchisee on the chance to amend the default

before the action to terminate the contract. Dunkin’ Donuts reports the defendants to have

violated the franchise agreements by transferring a substantial part of the franchises without the

consent of Dunkin' Donuts. Further, he proved the notice letters on the allegations sent to the

defendant providing the thirty days to cure the defaults. However, the defendants failed to act on
 3

the notice letter to cure the problems entitling Dunkin' Donuts to terminate the franchise

agreement according to the termination clauses. Therefore, the terms stated in the franchise

agreements were in favor of Dunkin' Donuts.

CASE 2: FRANCE v. SOUTHERN EQUIPMENT CO.

1. Having France on the job violated federal and state employment law because of France’s

age on a dangerous worksite. Could that change Southern’s liability?

France claimed the argument, but the fact that he was 16 on a dangerous worksite could

not make Southern liable. France was hired by Royalty Builders, which was an independent

contractor and not controlled by Southern. Evaluating the relationship between France and the

Southern, they had no direct control over the employer; they were not involved in his hiring, no

compensation. They had to power of dismissal, implying no master-servant relationship between

France and the southern. Furthermore, Southern Equipment had no agreement contract with

Royalty builders concerning the roofing work. The law stated that any independent contractor

employee is not liable for any injuries or accidents arising due to the omission of the fault of

another contractor or their employers. Hence, Southern's liability was unchanged on Robert

France.

2. France argued that Southern managers should have noticed that a young person was

working on the roof and inquired about it. Is that a credible argument?

France's argument that the Southern supervisors should have noticed a minor working on

the roof was not credible. The southern managers were not in direct control of the employees of

an independent contractor. Further, employing a minor was an omission by Royalty Builders and

not a fault of Southern, who was not interested in the age of the workers. Consequently, there is
 4

no logical reasoning behind identifying a minor through physical appearance, yet Southern

managers had not engaged Royalty builders in the contract.