Schupack brought an action for specific performance, requiring McDonald’s to accord him the right of first refusal. Is Schupack correct in his contention? Explain.
| ♥ 0 |
McDonald’s has an undeviating policy of retaining absolute control over who receives new franchises. McDonald’s granted to Copeland a franchise in Omaha, Nebraska. In a separate letter, it also granted him a right of first refusal for future franchises to be developed in the Omaha-Council Bluffs area. Copeland then sold all rights in his six McDonald’s franchises to Schupack. When McDonald’s offered a new franchise in the Omaha area to someone other than Schupack, Schupack attempted to exercise the right of first refusal. McDonald’s would not recognize the right in Schupack, claiming that it was personal to Copeland and, therefore, nonassignable without its consent. Schupack brought an action for specific performance, requiring McDonald’s to accord him the right of first refusal. Is Schupack correct in his contention? Explain. |
Explanation
Individual C has been granted the right to the franchise contract solely and individually. This privilege is provided by Company MD based on individual trust and confidence in the original contract with Individual C. Whether the right to first refuse is personal and not assignable, depends on the intent of the parties. So, the rights are not assignable,as clearly mentioned in the contract,and Individual C is going to lose the suit against Company MD.
Verified Answer
No, Individual S is not going to prevail against the Company MD. This is because without the agreement of the other party to the deal, arrangements for personal services or requiring ties of personal confidence and trust are not assignable.
