Franchise Agreement Royalties

After Montcastle, PIP and other franchisors undoubtedly enjoyed a certain degree of comfort, which were in fact allowed to recover future royalties lost from licensed franchisees. This comfort was ephemeral. In 1996, a California appeals court issued the first reported decision, stating that a franchisee was not entitled to the loss of future royalties for licensed franchisees. [FN36] In Postal Instant Press, Inc. v. Sealy, with the most comprehensive analysis of the problem in each decision notified, the California Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that paid future royalties to PIP. [FN37] PIP had terminated the defendant franchises seven years before the expiry of the franchise agreement for non-payment of royalties [FN38], and then filed a complaint against the amounts due under the contract. .