Subsidy: the franchisor does not offer direct or indirect financing. The franchisor does not guarantee a franchisee`s rating, lease or commitment. We will review your questionnaire and, if you qualify provisionally, you will receive our franchise publication document (FDD). The FDD contains more specific information about Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, a franchise agreement, annual accounts and a list of franchisees you can contact. Check the FDD with your lawyer or accountant and determine if the opportunity is compatible with your financial goals and capabilities. A number of jurisdictions have reviewed the calculation of a franchisor`s claim on future royalties in the event of a breach of a franchise agreement and have decided that future damages constitute a net amount and not a gross amount. See z.B. Burger King Corp. v. Barnes, 1 F. Supp.
2d 1367, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 1998) (affirming that the franchisor must deduct expenses from expected future royalties to prove the right to “lost profits”); In re Mid-America Corp., 159 B.R. 48, 55 (M.D. Fla. Mr. Bankr. 1993) (claiming that, although franchisees caused damage to franchisors by abandoning its franchises, the franchisor`s failure to provide evidence of its individual franchise expenses made the franchisor`s right to future licence fees speculative); See Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Sealy, 51 Cal. Rptr.
2d 365, 372 n. 5 (Cal.Ct.App 1996) (on “difficulties in obtaining an estimate of future lost copyrights) (emphasizes in the original). With respect to the positive defences that the accused retained in the revised final first procedure order [docket 205-14], the court finds that the accused did not allow their burden to be placed on those defences in court. The defendants abandoned their affirmative defence of the consideration`s omission by providing no evidence that RMCF`s business model was of no value. In addition, the evidence provided by both parties to the tribunal indicated that a number of RMCF franchisees were indeed successful, which excludes this defence. During closing argument, counsel for the defendant indicated that the defendant`s defence of the impure hand is based on RMCF`s statement in Note 5 of Point 19 that it does not have access to the costs or costs incurred by each of the 169 franchised stores in point 19. “The doctrine of impure hands allows an accused to build a just defence to overcome just remedies, but no recourse under the law.” Wilson v. Prentiss, 140 p.3d 288, 293 (Colo.App 2006).
Therefore, the invocation of improper hands by the defendants is not a recognizable defence of RMCF`s only claim for damages resulting from a contractual contract, which is more a legal right than a fair right. However, as a result of the facts of this case, the Court cannot conclude that the statement in Note 5 of item 19, even if erroneous, legitimately prevents RMCF from recovering damages in the event of a breach of the franchise agreement by the defendants. RMCF`s forecast is based on actual purchases made by the defendant in 2005, the 51,133 $US in sales (the factory margin for these purchases was $18,290) annualized to determine the amount the defendants would have acquired in 2006 if they had remained an RMCF deductible until that date (6,828 pounds of RMCF proceeds).