This commercial litigation mainly presents issues under the New Jersey Franchise Practices Act ("NJFPA"), N.J.S.A. 56:10-1 to -15. As its principal claim in this case, defendant/third-party plaintiff Eastern Outdoor Furnishings ("Eastern Outdoor") contends that third-party defendant AMD Direct, Inc., ("AMD") violated the NJFPA in terminating Eastern Outdoor's alleged franchise to sell AMD's products. AMD denies that such a franchise relationship existed.
The motion judge granted summary judgment to AMD, dismissing Eastern Outdoor's claims under the statute, upon specifically finding there was no "written agreement" establishing a franchise between the parties. Eastern Outdoor has appealed that decision, along with other rulings made by the trial court.
The court affirms the motion judge's grant of summary judgment dismissing the NJFPA claims, albeit based on somewhat different reasoning. The court holds that to establish a franchise enforceable under the NJFPA, the statute does not require a comprehensive and integrated "written agreement" between the parties. Instead, N.J.S.A. 56:10-3(a) more flexibly defines a franchise to consist of a "written arrangement" that also meets various other requirements. Nonetheless, it is clear the record—even when viewed in a light most favorable to Eastern Outdoor—fails to provide sufficient evidence to establish such a qualifying "written arrangement."
Although the court affirms dismissal of the NJFPA claims, it remands the case to adjudicate Eastern Outdoor's separate claims of tortious interference and indemnification that were not expressly addressed in the motion judge's decision.