Sorry for interrupting, but there is something we need to tell you...

We have updated our Cookie Policy to reflect changes in the law on cookies used on websites in Europe. This website uses cookies to maximize your experience and help us to understand how we can improve it. To find out more click here.

Cookies are text files containing small amounts of data which are downloaded to your computer, or other device, when you visit a website. Cookies allow us to recognize your computer and improve your experience on our website. Some cookies are also necessary for the technical operation of our website. Please read our Cookie Policy which provides important information about the cookies we use, how we use them and how they can be deleted. Please remember that deleting cookies may affect your experience of our website.

Show less.

Accept and hide this message
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury
Pillsbury
Case Study

Freeing a Rapidly Growing Company from an Unreasonable Service Contract

12/31/11
"[Yogurtland's] financial ratios are strong and best in class. We credit this to management's superior operating model and meticulous growth plans."
—The FranchiseHound.com, on its "strong buy" recommendation for Pillsbury's client

Yogurtland is among the hottest new franchise chains, having grown from two Southern California stores to more than 150 locations in less than four years. And thanks to Pillsbury, Yogurtland successfully terminated a regional distribution arrangement that threatened to severely limit the company's burgeoning business.

The five-year agreement allowed for termination of the contract if the distributor failed to provide "reasonable service." So when Yogurtland saw that its distributor's service wasn't keeping up with the franchise's rapid growth, it switched to a nationwide company.

But the regional distributor sued, claiming damages of up to $16 million, an amount that exceeded Yogurtland's profits at that point. So Yogurtland hired Pillsbury to handle what was a bet-the-company case.

The distributor argued that Yogurtland had terminated its contract solely due to pricing, and that the contract provided an exclusive, systemwide relationship. The distributor's stated strategy was to force Yogurtland back into a business relationship under the threat of annihilating damages. Unable to reach a reasonable resolution through negotiations, Pillsbury took Yogurtland's case to the arbitration hearing.

Because the contract signed by the parties was ambiguous, there was no way to win the case on summary judgment. Pillsbury focused instead on detailed questioning of the witnesses from both sides, to demonstrate how the contract's language should be interpreted.

The arbitrator agreed with Pillsbury's arguments that 1) the contract was limited to Southern California, and2) was not exclusive. Given this and its admittedly higher pricing structure, the arbitrator held that the distributor had not shown any damages. The arbitrator awarded Yogurtland attorneys' fees as the prevailing party, resulting in a Superior Court judgment confirming the award.

For a copy of this publication, click the link in the adjacent "Downloads" section.
Pillsbury
Pillsbury Pillsbury Pillsbury