- 10 -
grounds were that the termination did not violate antitrust laws
and that the oral agreement with the distributor did not prevent
termination at will.4
In late 1985 or early 1986, representatives of H�agen-Dazs
first approached the Strassbergs about acquiring direct access to
Arnold’s relationships with the supermarkets and removing him as
a middleman in the chain of distribution. H�agen-Dazs also
wanted to forestall competitors, such as Ben and Jerry’s, from
using Arnold’s contacts and knowledge to gain access to the
supermarkets. H�agen-Dazs also did not want to leave
distributors like Arnold, who had been with H�agen-Dazs since the
early days of Mr. Mattus, without adequate reward for the role
they had played in bringing H�agen-Dazs to prominence. Also,
because Arnold was a high-profile, well-respected ice cream
distributor, H�agen-Dazs did not wish to alienate Arnold and risk
having him stir up the other independent distributors before
H�agen-Dazs was ready to take similar steps against them.
H�agen-Dazs believed that these various relationships, personal
3(...continued)
published opinion sub nom. H�agen-Dazs Co. v. Double Rainbow
Gourmet Ice Creams, Inc., 895 F.2d 1417 (9th Cir. 1990).
4 During the negotiations with Arnold, attorneys for
Pillsbury sent Russell L. Hewit (Mr. Hewit), attorney for Arnold,
Martin, and MIC, a copy of applicable sections of two treatises
on franchising, Rosenfield, The Law of Franchising, and Brown,
Franchising Realities and Remedies (1982 rev.), in support of its
contention that MIC, SIC, Arnold, and Martin had no enforceable
rights to distribute H�agen-Dazs ice cream products that could
not be terminated at will.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011