Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P, a duly licensed Fred Astaire Dance Studio franchisee sued D on a contract for the Studio's services. The trial court, sua sponte, raised the issue of whether P, as the assignee of the prior franchisee with whom D originally had dealt, was precluded from suing on the contract by what arguably might be considered to be a nonassignability clause. D entered into a standard 'Student Enrollment Agreement' in March of 1973 with the Studio. It was signed on behalf of the Studio by James Hash, who then was the Studio's licensee and operator. The contract called for 200 hours of dancing lessons, to be taken within one year of the signing of the agreement, at a cost of $1,430.00. The Studio was required to provide qualified dance instruction. The agreement also stated: I understand that this agreement is made solely between myself and the licensee who is an independent contractor, doing business under the trade name of 'FRED ASTAIRE DANCE STUDIO', and that the licensee is not authorized to act on behalf of Fred Astaire or any other person or corporation. Accordingly, I understand and acknowledge that neither Fred Astaire nor any person or corporation other than the licensee and myself shall be bound by this agreement. Hash sold his license to operate the Studio to P. Hash assigned all pending contracts for instruction to P, D carried on with the furnishing of lessons to D. D accepted them without objection but in December of 1973, he stopped making payments. D had completed 180 1/2 hours of instruction. P filed suit claiming an unpaid contract balance of $600. D's motion to dismiss was granted on the ground that the 'agreement says it's only Mr. Hash and D to be bound by the terms of this agreement. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co