Whataburger`s live advocacy, his first amended original response to Barrand`s allegations, included many positive defenses, including the fraud law.   See Tex.R. Civ. p. 94.   In its application for summary judgment, Whataburger argued that the oral agreement sought by Barrand to authorise the development of new businesses could not be concluded within one year and was therefore unenforceable under the Fraud Act.   See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 26.01(b)(6) (Vernon Supp.2006).   In his written response, Barrand raised the following issue against the summary verdict on Whataburger`s affirmative defense: ”[The] agreement. is an enforceable oral contract because it was possible that the obligations arising from the agreement could have been fulfilled within one year.   We disagree.

This is a franchise dispute.   Whataburger operates fast food restaurants specializing in the sale of hamburgers and related products using Whataburger`s proprietary trademarks and information (”the Whataburger System”).   Through various franchise agreements and other agreements, Whataburger has also allowed other parties to participate in the Whataburger system.   Although considered by the parties to be a successful business venture, discord developed among participants in the Whataburger franchise system after the discovery of an allegedly inappropriate discount program between Whataburger and suppliers who sell products to Whataburger franchisees.   This discovery led to a lawsuit filed by various franchisees, including BurgerWorks and Barrand, demanding restitution and punitive damages for what they saw as an illegal corruption scheme.   The parties settled the action before the trial.  The first right that Whataburger would have waived is the right to ”refuse use. the form of agreement required in the new franchises.   When we found that Whataburger based its right to judgment as a legal issue on its four grounds for summary judgment, we did not find that Whataburger had the right to ”consume.” the form of agreement required in the new franchises.   Instead, we have come to the conclusion that Whataburger is not obligated to grant new franchise locations or extend existing contracts.

  If Whataburger has waived its right to ”refuse use. the formal agreement required in the new franchises” is a trivial matter, as Whataburger is not obliged to enter into new franchise agreements.   In other words, the question of control is whether Whataburger is obliged to conclude new franchise agreements.   If this is not the case, as we have noted, there is no need to go any further on the terms that future contracts may contain.   This is what emerges from Whataburger`s live petition, which claimed no right to ”refuse use. the form of agreement required in the new franchises.   Instead, Whataburger asked the trial court to conclude that (1) it is not obligated to grant new franchise locations, (2) has no obligation to renew existing contracts, and (3) has no permanent obligations under the settlement agreement.   Accordingly, we declare that the waiver of the right to ”refuse use. the form required in the new franchises” is not a question of fact that would preclude a summary judgment based on Whataburger`s application.

To calculate the income that a franchise owner can earn at Whataburger Franchise, factors such as location, size, etc. may vary. On the other hand, as a business owner, your goals are to maintain the quality of service while spreading high revenues and spending little. Like any other deductible, rent/mortgage, staff/family, storage supplies, utilities, administrative costs, etc. may include. From location to location and season, monthly costs may vary. Most franchise start-up costs are usually fixed and cover most of the initial operating costs such as signage, furniture, decoration and renovations. One brand looking for franchise partners to expand its more than 400 locations across the country is Denver-based Smashburger, named for its technique of breaking its patties over high heat on a flat grill. In-N-Out Burger has built its reputation on maintaining a limited but fresh, high-quality menu that hasn`t changed much since its inception in 1948. However, if you want to open a franchise of this popular burger chain, you`re out of luck. If you want to open a Five Guys in North America, you`re out of luck.

The brand`s franchise website offers little information about the opportunity itself, but informs potential prospects that they are only ”interested in franchise partners for certain international markets.” They also require all applicants to have at least $5 million in available capital. With affordable entry costs and a rapidly evolving model, a Wayback Burgers franchise offers an entrepreneur the opportunity to open one of the best fast and casual restaurants and enjoy the impressive growth of the brand. The settlement agreement provides for cash refunds for franchisees.   It also includes an agreement to amend existing franchise agreements.   Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Whataburger and the Franchisees entered into new franchise agreements (collectively, ”the Amended Franchise Agreement”) with new terms, including new terms.   Under the amended franchise agreement, franchisees will have the right to operate restaurants under the Whataburger system for an initial period of ten years.   At the end of the first ten-year period, franchisees have the option to extend their franchise agreements for an additional five years.   At the end of the five-year period, franchisees can renew their contract for a further five-year period.   Neither the settlement agreement nor the amended franchise agreement contains conditions for the extension of the contract beyond the two optional five-year terms.   Thus, the total possible duration under the contracts is twenty years.

Whataburger operates franchises in Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Georgia. The original Whataburger restaurant is located in Corpus Christi, Texas, where it originally had its headquarters, but has since moved to San Antonio, Texas. Whataburger, founded in 1950 by Harmon Dobson, is still a family business. WOA and Whataburger have a business relationship that dates back to 1953, when WOA opened its first Whataburger franchise in Alice, Jim Wells County, Texas. Over the next forty years, WOA opened more Whataburger franchises in Bexar, Jim Wells, Bee, and Webb counties. WOA`s development of the franchises was based on Whataburger`s promise of exclusivity in each of these counties. In 1990, WOA arranged for the sale of its twenty-eight franchises in Bexar County to a group of investors as well as its exclusive development rights. In response, Whataburger sued WOA to block the sale of the franchises. While the trial was ongoing, WOLA discovered what he called the ”bribery” scheme.

Whataburger required its franchisees to purchase certain foods and consumables from certain vendors. WOA discovered that Whataburger was receiving money from these sellers because of these ”forced” sales. The case was taken to court and while the jury was deliberating, the parties agreed to reach an agreement. The result was the 1993 Settlement Agreement, the interpretation of which is controversial in the present case. In 2002, Whataburger sued the franchisees for a declaratory judgment.   Whataburger`s live motion asked the trial court to provide the following court statements: (1) ”that Whataburger has no legal obligation to grant new franchise locations and/or franchise agreements under settlement agreements or otherwise”;  (2) ”that Whataburger is not obliged to grant new franchise agreements to franchised defendants at the end of their contractual terms with respect to their current locations”;  and (3) ”that Whataburger has fulfilled all of its obligations under the settlement agreements.” Whataburger [claims] to have the right to do two things – to refuse to use it. the required form of agreement in the new franchises and terminate the [Regulation] [A]greement.   However, Whataburger did not exercise any of these rights.   Instead, Whataburger deliberately acted inconsistently with these so-called rights and the position it takes in its candidacy. The sentence on which Whataburger relies – ”in connection with any provision of franchise agreements” – simply qualifies Whataburger`s agreement as not ”acting inappropriately” and in no way restricts Whataburger`s prior consent or qualifies it as ”that it will not unreasonably withhold its consent or consent to any action requiring its consent”. Section III.  D.

. . .