Franchising (& Distribution) Currents
According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of th...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Franchise law journal 2012-10, Vol.32 (2), p.105-115 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 115 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 105 |
| container_title | Franchise law journal |
| container_volume | 32 |
| creator | Batenhorst, Gary R. Byers, David M. Spencer, Robin M. |
| description | According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1138295448</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>24236306</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>24236306</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-j508-252f0b5bbd4df7ced5c49b6b8a277aeecf62b1223ada199b2cf9676bb7e9f6763</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotjc1KxDAYRYMoWEcfQSiIootA8uV_KdVRYcDN7EuSJpqi6Zi0C9_ewrg6d3G45wQ1QCXDQAU_RY1WQmJlJJyji1pHQkAzUA263Rab_WeqKX-093ftU6pzSW6Z05Qf2m4pJeS5XqKzaL9quPrnBu23z_vuFe_eX966xx0eBdEYBETihHMDH6LyYRCeGyedtqCUDcFHCY4CMDtYaowDH41U0jkVTFwH26Cb4-2hTD9LqHM_TkvJa7GnlGkwgnO9WtdHa6zzVPpDSd-2_PbAgUlGJPsDie5F7w</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1138295448</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Franchising (& Distribution) Currents</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Batenhorst, Gary R. ; Byers, David M. ; Spencer, Robin M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Batenhorst, Gary R. ; Byers, David M. ; Spencer, Robin M.</creatorcontrib><description>According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages.</description><identifier>ISSN: 8756-7962</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2163-2154</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</publisher><subject>Agreements ; Appellate courts ; Arbitration ; Bankruptcy ; Contracts ; Defendants ; Disputes ; Federal court decisions ; Franchise agreements ; Franchisees ; Franchises ; Injunctions ; Just cause ; Language ; Plaintiffs ; State court decisions ; State courts ; State laws ; Statutory law ; Summary judgments ; Waivers</subject><ispartof>Franchise law journal, 2012-10, Vol.32 (2), p.105-115</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2012 American Bar Association</rights><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Fall 2012</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/24236306$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/24236306$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Batenhorst, Gary R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byers, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Robin M.</creatorcontrib><title>Franchising (& Distribution) Currents</title><title>Franchise law journal</title><description>According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages.</description><subject>Agreements</subject><subject>Appellate courts</subject><subject>Arbitration</subject><subject>Bankruptcy</subject><subject>Contracts</subject><subject>Defendants</subject><subject>Disputes</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Franchise agreements</subject><subject>Franchisees</subject><subject>Franchises</subject><subject>Injunctions</subject><subject>Just cause</subject><subject>Language</subject><subject>Plaintiffs</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State courts</subject><subject>State laws</subject><subject>Statutory law</subject><subject>Summary judgments</subject><subject>Waivers</subject><issn>8756-7962</issn><issn>2163-2154</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2012</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNotjc1KxDAYRYMoWEcfQSiIootA8uV_KdVRYcDN7EuSJpqi6Zi0C9_ewrg6d3G45wQ1QCXDQAU_RY1WQmJlJJyji1pHQkAzUA263Rab_WeqKX-093ftU6pzSW6Z05Qf2m4pJeS5XqKzaL9quPrnBu23z_vuFe_eX966xx0eBdEYBETihHMDH6LyYRCeGyedtqCUDcFHCY4CMDtYaowDH41U0jkVTFwH26Cb4-2hTD9LqHM_TkvJa7GnlGkwgnO9WtdHa6zzVPpDSd-2_PbAgUlGJPsDie5F7w</recordid><startdate>20121001</startdate><enddate>20121001</enddate><creator>Batenhorst, Gary R.</creator><creator>Byers, David M.</creator><creator>Spencer, Robin M.</creator><general>American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</general><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X5</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8A3</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BEZIV</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FRNLG</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K60</scope><scope>K6~</scope><scope>L.-</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQBIZ</scope><scope>PQBZA</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20121001</creationdate><title>Franchising (& Distribution) Currents</title><author>Batenhorst, Gary R. ; Byers, David M. ; Spencer, Robin M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-j508-252f0b5bbd4df7ced5c49b6b8a277aeecf62b1223ada199b2cf9676bb7e9f6763</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2012</creationdate><topic>Agreements</topic><topic>Appellate courts</topic><topic>Arbitration</topic><topic>Bankruptcy</topic><topic>Contracts</topic><topic>Defendants</topic><topic>Disputes</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Franchise agreements</topic><topic>Franchisees</topic><topic>Franchises</topic><topic>Injunctions</topic><topic>Just cause</topic><topic>Language</topic><topic>Plaintiffs</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State courts</topic><topic>State laws</topic><topic>Statutory law</topic><topic>Summary judgments</topic><topic>Waivers</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Batenhorst, Gary R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Byers, David M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Spencer, Robin M.</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Entrepreneurship Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Entrepreneurship Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Business Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Business Collection</collection><collection>ABI/INFORM Professional Advanced</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business</collection><collection>ProQuest One Business (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Franchise law journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Batenhorst, Gary R.</au><au>Byers, David M.</au><au>Spencer, Robin M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Franchising (& Distribution) Currents</atitle><jtitle>Franchise law journal</jtitle><date>2012-10-01</date><risdate>2012</risdate><volume>32</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>105</spage><epage>115</epage><pages>105-115</pages><issn>8756-7962</issn><eissn>2163-2154</eissn><abstract>According to the court, it would be inequitable to permit Ceballo to litigate while Diaz, who signed the distributor agreement, was forced to arbitrate his "substantially indistinguishable" claims. According to the court, the Eighth Circuit had not made a determinative interpretation of the relevant arbitration issues.\n In its de novo review on appeal, the appellate court first explained that three types of conduct violate § 17200 of the UCL, which must be read disjunctively. According to the court, plaintiff's argument would not have succeeded even if raised earlier because 7-Eleven was not the class members' employer, and only an employer was required to pay wages.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association Forum on Franchising</pub><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 8756-7962 |
| ispartof | Franchise law journal, 2012-10, Vol.32 (2), p.105-115 |
| issn | 8756-7962 2163-2154 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_1138295448 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete |
| subjects | Agreements Appellate courts Arbitration Bankruptcy Contracts Defendants Disputes Federal court decisions Franchise agreements Franchisees Franchises Injunctions Just cause Language Plaintiffs State court decisions State courts State laws Statutory law Summary judgments Waivers |
| title | Franchising (& Distribution) Currents |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-03T03%3A57%3A57IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Franchising%20(&%20Distribution)%20Currents&rft.jtitle=Franchise%20law%20journal&rft.au=Batenhorst,%20Gary%20R.&rft.date=2012-10-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=105&rft.epage=115&rft.pages=105-115&rft.issn=8756-7962&rft.eissn=2163-2154&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E24236306%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1138295448&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=24236306&rfr_iscdi=true |