Terrific will terminate DFG’s franchise
Terrific Tofu is a national franchisor issuing franchises to franchisees for its fast-food restaurants selling Tofu products. DFG Co. obtains a franchise for the Hartford, Connecticut area. As a part of its franchise agreement, Terrific requires that franchisees buy all their ingedients and other products from Terrific including products other than the Tofu. Terrific also requires that its franchisees sell its products at a designated price and that price varies by quite a bit across the country. DFG is concerned about these requirements because it would like to sell the Tofu product much cheaper and can obtain the ingredients other than Tofu much cheaper. DFG has written to Terrific claiming that Terrific never disclosed these requirements to DFG before it obtained the franchise, Terrific’s practices are illegal and DFG will stop buying products other than Tofu from Terrific and will charge lower prices. Terrific has told DFG that if it does so, Terrific will terminate DFG’s franchise. Please comment of the legal position of DGF and Terrific.
Constitutional law seminal cases of Marbury v. Madison and Ex parte McCardle were the original Court considerations of the limits and scope of judicial interpretation. Following a reading of these cases and the completion of a review of this week’s reading and video assignment, take an advocacy position on one side of the constitutional review debate and defend it with reference to at least two (2) outside resources.
You should discuss the merits of either “strict constructionism” or “interpretivism” as it relates to both the general process of judicial review and the specific application of that system of review of a specific fundamental right. For example, you should consider the impact of your kind of judicial review upon our contemporary society in the practice of religion or our freedom of speech.