Subscriber AreaDiscussionCommunity ContributorsStoreASTUSTPMPAIndustry Resources


  PMPA Statute | Table of Contents | Index | Slip Opinions | Search
   
 
  • April Marketing & Distributing Corp., Inc. v. Diamond Shamrock Refining and Marketing Company, No. 3:91-CV-0101-P (N.D. Tex. 2-6-94) Slip Opinion; No. 3:91-CV-0101-P (N.D. Tex. 9-13-94) Slip Opinion; 103 F.3d 28 (5th Cir. 1-10-97); No. 3:91-CV-0101-P (N.D. Tex. 11-20-97) Slip Opinion

    SJ for franchisor on remand. Following 5th Circuit's holding that a franchisor's actions (refusing to brand locations, reducing franchisee's credit limit and building competing stores near franchisee's locations) which do not breach the franchise agreement cannot be considered a termination within the meaning of the PMPA, the district court agreed that 5th Circuit left open the possibility of maintaining a claim for constructive termination. However, there must be a violation of the franchise agreement. Franchisee's reliance on same factual assertions which 5th Circuit found is not a violation of PMPA. "All costs incurred by defendant, shall be assess against plaintiff."


Copyright © 2000 - 2007 Petroleum Marketing Law Internet Site. All Rights Reserved. Legal notice.