We will write a custom Case Study on Symcox v. Zuk (1963) Case specifically for you
301 certified writers online
Statement of Facts
In the case, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for the fraudulent motive of an agreement for violation of different provisions of the agreement, as well as for violation of a separate option agreement. The plaintiff received a note on one contract concerning the violation of its claims in terms of levies made on the personal and real property of the accused. In their turn, defendants expressed their objection to a fraud accusation against them, claiming that plaintiff was not allowed to recover for fraud through the election doctrine. The Symcox court objected to this contention and presented prior cases that appealed to the election doctrine, asserting that these cases differed from the provided case because each one represents only one course of action, interpreted in various ways under several theories.
Although the distributor franchise agreement had been patently illegal, is the distributor not allowed to recover for enfranchisers’ breach of contract provision guaranteeing complete distributor return of cash investment?
In the case under analysis, the plaintiff’s first action was predetermined by fraud intentions because the defendant, by the false representation, made the plaintiff enter into franchise contract distribution, thus undertaking out-of-pocket costs. The section action incurred by the plaintiff involved a violation of the guaranty section of the distribution franchise agreement. The new steps taken by the plaintiff include a violation of the same contract due to the fact that the defendants failed to provide the plaintiff with the type of commercial activities stipulated in the agreement. Further actions included the violation of the clause on a refund that is described in an option agreement that differs from the distributor franchise agreement.
It should also be stressed that the operative facts relating to each action are diverse, and in each case, various primary laws were violated. Consequently, the plaintiff’s application of provision recovery of the note as to one of the separate causes of action did not relate to the election because the plaintiffs had been involved in isolated causes of action and had the right to follow all of them until the action was fulfilled. The court decided that there was no prohibition incurred by the remedies election when various rights were violated.
Yes, the distributor is not allowed to recover for enfranchisers’ breach of contract provision guaranteeing complete distributor return of cash investment.
The court’s decision is relatively objective because each cause of action forwarded by the plaintiff was carried out in accordance with the established legislature and contract law. Besides, it should be stressed that the legal arguments introduced by the complainants are predetermined by their intention to affirm their defense to the accusation of the contract violation and, therefore, these arguments could not be regarded as the main components of the claim itself.
The point is that the counterargument includes an offer, consideration, acceptance, violation, and possible damages. According to law, the claim excludes formal pleading standards that introduce the difference between evidentiary and ultimate facts, as well as between conclusions and facts. Therefore, the court decision was congruent with the established norms because the procedures undertaken by the plaintiff were not interrelated.
In conclusion, although the distributor franchise agreement had been illegal in terms of patent procedures, the distributor was not entitled to recover for enfranchisers’ violation of contract provision because each cause of action relies on different rights. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to follow all of them until satisfaction, as it was initially stated in the agreement.