First came the unlikely victory of the so-called Snap-On Wives, who managed to end-run arbitration clauses in their husbands' franchise agreements, by arguing that they were their husbands' creditors with direct fraud claims against Snap-On. Now, arbitrator and former California Superior Court Judge James M. Slater ruled that Snap-on franchisees themselves can bring a class action in arbitration against the company for alleged fraudulent practices. Judge Slater said that the franchisees "cannot meaningfully pursue their claims outside a class action" because the cost of litigation would cause "each case to be a negative return case even if successful."
Posted by franchiselawblog at August 18, 2005 12:08 PM