SMU Annual Texas Survey Volume 4 Article 9 2018 Franchise Law Deborah S. Coldwell Haynes and Boone, LLP,
[email protected] Iris Gibson Haynes and Boone, LLP,
[email protected] Virginia Burke DeBeer Haynes and Boone, LLP,
[email protected] Sally Dahlstrom Haynes and Boone, LLP,
[email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smuatxs Part of the State and Local Government Law Commons Recommended Citation Deborah S. Coldwell et al., Franchise Law, 4 SMU ANN. TEX. SURV. 183 (2018) https://scholar.smu.edu/smuatxs/vol4/iss1/9 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Annual Texas Survey by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. FRANCHISE LAW Deborah S. Coldwell* Iris Gibson** Sally Dahlstrom*** Virginia Burke DeBeer**** Texas law continues to navigate through various litigation-related franchising issues. Although this Survey period did not have any single “blockbuster” development for franchise and distribution case law in Texas, a number of cases were decided on frequently litigated issues in Texas, including the scope and applicability of contractual arbitration provisions, the interpretation of discretionary contract obligations, misap- propriation of trade secrets as defined by the Texas Uniform Trade Secrets Act, and the application of the economic loss rule to fraud and misrepresentation claims. This Survey period produced many Texas cases that continue to define and shape the franchise environment. These cases highlight important considerations for contract drafters and litigators, in- cluding procedural hurdles, early-dispute resolution, common law and statutory claims, and intellectual property issues that are unique to the franchising model.