Classy Antique Motels is a chain of older motels most of which were originally built in
the 1950s and 1960s. The idea is to distinguish these older motels from the many older
motels that have become “run-down” or ‘seedy.” Each motel retains it original name and
sign, but has an additional sign that says, “Member of Classy Antique Motels.” One of
the chain’s slogans is, “Stay at original motels, often with the original owners.” The
franchisor provides group marketing and management assistance in exchange for an
initial fee to become part of the chain, and a continuing fee based on gross revenues.
One of the franchisee motel owners allowed the conditions at his motel to deteriorate to
the point that it is now a popular location for illicit drug transactions. A guest was
injured from gunfire arising out of a drug deal at the motel. Can the guest recover from
the franchisor?
A) yes, because franchisors are generally liable for the torts of franchisees
B) yes, because each motel is an actual agent of the franchisor
C) yes, because the motel is the apparent agent of the franchisor
D) no, because the conduct in this situation does not create an agency arrangement
E) no, because franchisors cannot be held liable for a franchisee’s tort, unless the
franchisor actively participated in the tort
What is the difference between proposed additions and the “Battle of the Forms”
doctrine?
A) Proposed additions arise between merchants and non-merchants, but Battle of the
Forms” arises between merchants.
B) Proposed additions arise between only merchants and “Battle of the Forms” only
arises between non-merchants.
C) Proposed additions and “Battle of the Forms” arise between both merchants and
non-merchants.
D) A contract is made when proposed additions are made, but not when there is a
“Battle of the Forms.”
E) There is no difference between proposed additions and the “Battle of the Forms”