Smoothie King Terms Of Agreement

[ 14.1.4] Where, contrary to the provisions of Article VI or VII, the franchisee discloses: that the Supreme Court of Kaiser Steel allowed a defendant in an infringement case to receive a defence of illegality, given that the contractual provision in question was an unenforceable “Hot Cargo” agreement that violated both the Sherman Act and the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRA”). Id. at 79-83. The court stated that the specific provision allegedly violated by the accused was illegal on two levels: first, because it compelled the accused to act unlawfully and therefore could not be enforced “without ordering unlawful conduct”; and, second, because the agreement itself was illegal, since the LMRA expressly prohibited unions and employers from entering into hot cargo agreements and declared them legally. Id. at 79. Consequently, the Court of First Instance decided that the defendant had not been prevented from asserting the illegality of the provision defending the applicant`s contractual claim. 24.1 Unless expressly stated otherwise, each part, section, concept and/or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed severable; and if, for any reason, any party, section, part, provision and/or provision of this Agreement is held to be invalid and, in contradiction with or in contradiction with or in contradiction with or in contradiction with, or in contradiction with, or in contradiction with any law or future law or existing regulation of an applicable jurisdiction or agency, it must not affect the functioning of those other parts or have other effects on them; the sections, parts, conditions and/or provisions of this Agreement which may otherwise remain comprehensible; and the latter continue to be fully effective and to retain the parties; and such invalid parts, sections, parties and/or provisions shall not be deemed to form part of this Agreement. With respect to the first element, Louisiana law expressly recognizes that a franchisee and a franchisee are among those of La. Rev. Stat. § 23: 921 (F) (2) may agree on obligations not to compete.

This statute provides that a non-compete agreement between a franchisee and a franchisee is applicable if the parties agree: 12.3 The franchisee agrees that the franchisee has the right, at its discretion, to designate any geographical area (the boundaries of which may be changed from time to time) for the purpose of establishing a cooperative. When a cooperative has been set up for the territory where the unit is located at the time of the start of the activity (or is subject to advertising costs), the franchisee immediately becomes a member of this cooperative and carries out an advertising cooperation contract in a form satisfactory to the franchisee. In the event of the creation or subsequent creation of a cooperative in the territory of the franchisee[l], the franchisee becomes a member of this cooperative, starting thirty (30) days at the latest, the corresponding advertising cooperative contract. Under no circumstances is the franchisee required to be a member of more than one cooperative at the same time. The franchisor reserves the right to define the statutes and other rules according to which each cooperative will work. The following requirements apply to each cooperative: 15.9 Neither the franchisee| Acceptance of a proposed transfer is still the franchisee`s agreement[2]s to exercise its stock options of a seller, are considered waivers of the rights that the franchisee has against an agent, any right to require an assignor or assignee to comply exactly with the terms of this Agreement, any future rights or options of the franchisee or any provision of this Agreement. . . .