Plaintiff-franchisee brought suit against Defendant-franchisor, claiming, inter alia, that Defendant tortiously interfered with Plaintiff's attempt to sell his franchised restaurant to a prospective buyer. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant on the tortious interference count, holding that Michigan law permits a claim for tortious interference only if the defendant is a "third party" to the transaction. The district court agreed with Defendant that it was not an "outsider," but rather was a contracting party vis-a-vis the franchisee. Any challenge to the franchisor's refusal to consent to the sale of the franchise was actionable, if at all, as a breach of contract.
Cook v Little Caesar Enterprises, Civ No. 95-40234, ED Mich, 8/7/97, Gadola, J. (dkt #106 - 42 pages)
This article was written by Mark A. Goldsmith, a partner in our Litigation Department, and previously appeared in the October 1997 edition of the Michigan Bar Journal.