Главное Свежее Вакансии   Проекты
217 0 В избр. Сохранено
Авторизуйтесь
Вход с паролем

Burglary Law

All about the law of burglary

Procedural Posture

Appellant oil company sought review of judgment in favor of appellee service association entered in the Superior Court, Costa County (California), which declared appellant’s petroleum franchise transfer policy in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 21148. The law is complete Burglary Law California with detail. Appellant asserted that the state statute was preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Products Act, 15 USCS § 2801 et seq., And that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the state statute.

Overview

Appellant oil company challenged a decision in favor of appellee service association, which declared appellant’s petroleum franchise transfer policy in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 21148 and enjoined execution of the policy. Appellant asserted that the statute was preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Products Act (PMPA), 15 USCS § 2801 et seq., And that the trial court incorrectly interpreted the statute. Appellant had two types of franchise agreements: a three year «regular franchise» containing automatic right of renewal for persons with prior experience and a one year trial franchise which were terminable for any reason. Appellee objected to the franchise policy, as franchised dealers were unable to sell and / or assign unexpired portions of their franchises to persons without experience. On appeal, the court held that § 21148 was not preempted by PMPA, because it did not conflict with and was not an obstacle to PMPA’s objectives. The court held that the record supported a finding that appellant’s franchise policy violated § 21148, based on testimony and legislative history, and that the court properly enjoined its execution.

Outcome

The court affirmed the trial court judgment, except as to attorney’s fees. The court held that the state statute addressing franchises was not preempted by the Petroleum Marketing Products Act (PMPA), as it did not conflict with and was not an obstacle to the objective and purposes of the PMPA. The court held that the record supported the finding that appellant oil company’s policy violated the state statute and that injunction was proper.

0
В избр. Сохранено
Авторизуйтесь
Вход с паролем