Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd

Last updated

Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's
Coat of Arms of New South Wales.svg
Court New South Wales Court of Appeal
Full case nameBurger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd
Decided21 June 2001
Citation(s) [2001] NSWCA 187, (2001) 69  NSWLR  558
Case history
Subsequent action(s)Application for special leave to appeal to the High Court:
[2002] HCATrans 180; appeal dismissed by consent: [2002] HCATrans 578
Case opinions
 
  • Hungry Jack's breach of clause 2.1 did not give Burger King a right to terminate the contract, because clause 2.1 was not an essential term (per curiam)
  • clause 15.1 did not give Burger King a right to terminate the contract (per curiam)
  • Burger King was in breach of an implied term of good faith (per curiam)
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingSheller, Beazley & Stein JJA

Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's [1] (2001) 69 NSWLR 558 was an Australian court case decided in the New South Wales Court of Appeal on 21 June 2001, concerning a dispute between United States-based fast food chain Burger King, and its Australian franchisee Hungry Jack's. It related to the breach of a business development agreement between the two companies, and the resulting attempts of Burger King to terminate the contract. The Court of Appeal decided that Burger King could not terminate the contract, for several reasons, one of which was that it was in breach of an implied term of good faith, having taken steps to engineer the breach of the contract.

Contents

The case is significant in Australian contract law as one of the most expansive characterisations yet of an implied term of good faith, particularly as it operates to limit parties exercising their contractual rights.

Background to the case

Hungry Jack's became the Australian franchisee of Burger King in 1971, and by 1996 it was the largest franchisee outside the United States, operating 150 restaurants directly and a further 18 through third-party franchisees. [2] From the 1980s onwards, Burger King had increased its interest in the operations of Hungry Jack's, leading to a number of disputes which prompted alterations to the franchise agreements in 1986, 1989, and again late in 1990 with the completion of four new agreements relating to different aspects of Hungry Jack's activities. [2]

One of these four agreements was the Development Agreement, clause 2.1 of which required Hungry Jack's to open four new stores each year in Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland either directly or through third-party franchisees. [2] Additionally, clause 4.1 made the opening of any new restaurants subject to Burger King's operational and financial approval. [2]

Several more disputes arose between the parties in the early 1990s, revolving around Burger King's desire to enter the Australian market directly. In 1992 Burger King considered buying out Hungry Jack's and its stores, either itself, through a third party or through a joint venture, but Hungry Jack's rejected these proposals. [2] In 1993 Burger King commenced negotiations with Shell to open Burger King outlets in some of Shell's service stations — initially including but later excluding Hungry Jack's from the discussions — which culminated in the opening of seven outlets from 1995. [2] During this time a senior Hungry Jack's executive was leaking secret information to Burger King about Hungry Jack's internal operations, and advising Burger King of methods it might employ to force Hungry Jack's to sell out its business to Burger King. [2]

The disputes came to a head in 1995, when Burger King withdrew all approval for third-party franchisees, and stopped granting financial or operating approval to proposed new stores, which meant that Hungry Jack's was unable to open four restaurants per year, as required by clause 2.1 of the Development Agreement. [2] Furthermore, in 1996, a number of stores' franchise agreements expired, and while Burger King renegotiated the agreements, the new agreements made future renewals subject to Burger King's approval, rather than providing for a right to renew; following this, Burger King announced that it would not renew any of these store franchises once they expired. [2]

In November 1996, Burger King purported to terminate the agreement between itself and Hungry Jack's, on the basis that Hungry Jack's had not opened the required number of stores. [2] Hungry Jack's then sued Burger King, alleging that Burger King had no right to terminate the agreement, and also challenging the validity of the new extension agreements. [2] Hungry Jack's was successful at trial, the trial judge finding that there had been breaches of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty on Burger King's part, and awarding Hungry Jack's nearly $AU 71 million in damages. [2] Burger King appealed against the decision.

Arguments

Clause 2.1

Hungry Jack's argued that its failure to comply with clause 2.1 did not give Burger King a right to terminate the agreement. Clause 8.1 of the agreement provided that the franchise fees normally payable by Hungry Jack's would be waived if the development schedule were complied with (that is, if Hungry Jack's opened the required number of stores), and further provided that, even if Hungry Jack's failed to comply, it would have a 12-month grace period to remedy the failure and still avoid the franchise fees. [1] Hungry Jack's argued that this meant Burger King would not have a right to terminate until the grace period expired, or else it would lose its opportunity to remedy the failure to comply. [1] Burger King argued that clause 15.1(d) — which allowed it to terminate the agreement if any of the conditions were breached — was worded broadly enough that any breach would activate it, and that clause 8.1 only operated if it chose not to terminate the agreement. [1]

Burger King alternatively argued that even if it had no right to terminate under clause 15.1(d), it had a right to terminate for a breach of clause 2.1 on ordinary principles of contract law, because clause 2.1 was an essential term of the contract. [1] It argued that terms in commercial contracts setting out the time for performance are usually considered essential terms. [1]

Good faith

Hungry Jack's also argued that the Development Agreement included an implied term of good faith (that is, that the parties must act in good faith when exercising their rights under the contract), and that Burger King had breached this term by denying the financial and operating approval to new restaurants, leading to Hungry Jack's failing to meet the minimum stores requirement. As a result of this breach of good faith, it argued, Burger King could not successfully terminate the contract. [1]

Judgment

The Court of Appeal delivered a unanimous judgment, dismissing the appeal. They found that Burger King had no right to terminate the contract, whether under clause 15.1(d) of the agreement, or under general principles of contract law, and further found that Burger King had breached an implied term of good faith.

Clause 2.1

The court first considered clause 2.1 in the Development Agreement. They noted that, while on its face it seemed to create in Burger King a right to terminate in the event of non-compliance by Hungry Jack's, it was actually subject to a number of qualifications, and that there were other procedures within the agreement for dealing with situations of non-compliance. [1] The court disagreed with Burger King's broad reading of the consequences of a breach of clause 2.1, concluding that such an interpretation would mean that Hungry Jack's could not take advantage of the grace period, and that a narrower view should be preferred. [1] Accordingly, they found that since Burger King had not allowed the 12-month grace period to expire, its termination was not effective. [1]

The court then considered whether clause 2.1 was an essential term, breach of which would allow Burger King to terminate the contract on the basis of ordinary principles of contract law. It considered a number of other clauses which provided for various procedures if clause 2.1 were not complied with (including the grace period in clause 8.1), and held that clause 2.1 could not be considered an essential term, as it could not be said that Burger King would not have entered the contract without being assured of strict compliance with it. [1]

The court thus found that Burger King had no right to terminate the contract for Hungry Jack's breach of 2.1, either under the contract or under the common law.

Good faith

In considering whether an implied term of good faith (along with an implied term of reasonableness) was included in the contract, the court first discussed past New South Wales cases on the point, in which terms of good faith had been implied into the relevant contracts, particularly Renard Constructions v Minister for Public Works. [1] In that case, Priestley JA had considered the status of implied terms of good faith in United States contract law — particularly via an examination of the Second Restatement of Contracts — where requirements of good faith are not only well-entrenched but often incorporated into contracts by way of legislation. [3] The court also examined the recognition of good faith in other Australian jurisdictions. [3]

The court found that a requirement of good faith may well be implied in all commercial contracts, particularly in standard form contracts. [1] However, it also considered that the contract in this case did not fall into any of the traditional categories of contracts where such terms are often implied. The court held that in these circumstances, it is necessary to consider whether the requirement of good faith is both reasonable and necessary in determining whether it should be implied into the contract. [4] In this case, the court said that the term was reasonable and necessary, since otherwise Burger King would be able to deny approval for new stores "capriciously, or with the sole intent of engineering a default of the Development Agreement". [1] [4]

In terms of the meaning of good faith, the court considered that there was no "distinction of substance" between an obligation to act in good faith and an obligation to act reasonably. [1] It further said that, while parties to a contract are allowed to pursue their own legitimate commercial interests within the framework of a contract, to do so for a purpose extraneous to the contract would be a breach of good faith. [1]

The court held that Burger King's actions in denying financial and operating approval for new restaurants were not the legitimate pursuit of interests under the Development Agreement, but were rather efforts to harm or hinder Hungry Jack's. [1]

Consequences

Burger King subsequently sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia, which was granted. [5] However, the appeal was subsequently dismissed by agreement between the parties. [6]

The case has been recognised as one among several cases indicating that "[a] duty of good faith in the performance of contracts is on the agenda of Australian contract law". [7] Horrigan identified the case as one of a number of cases in which New South Wales courts were leading the way in terms of good faith in Australian contract law, while noting that the idea has yet to catch on extensively in other jurisdictions, identifying good faith as one of the important unresolved areas of "fairness-based business regulation". [8]

To the extent that the decision represents a trend towards treating good faith as an implied term in many contracts, or possibly even a universal term, it has been criticised in a number of ways.

Adrian Baron has argued that the implication of a term of good faith runs contrary to basic principles of contract law, because it tends to disregard the reality that (at least in commercial contexts) parties to a contract "pursue their own commercial interests, and enter into terms that reflect the risks and benefits that each party is prepared to bear". [4] Baron argued that in 1990, when the parties entered the Development Agreement, "it would have been plain to Hungry Jack's that if certain events occurred, Burger King could, at its option, terminate the agreement", and that the contract sufficiently identified the circumstances warranting termination of the contract, with the result that "[t]he appendage of a requirement of reasonableness and good faith by the court to the agreement was inconsistent with the bargain freely entered into by the parties." [4]

Carter and Peden have argued that the case, along with Renard Constructions, [9] introduced a number of "unexplained anomalies in the law of termination clauses", including creating inconsistencies with other precedents relating to powers of sale and equitable limitations on challenging the termination of sale of land contracts. [10] Carter and Peden further argued that an implied good faith term is unnecessary, because basic contract principles already account for it, and it can only serve to introduce inconsistencies, stating that "[i]t seems clear that there are some who see Australian contract law as the 'poor relation' in comparison with other jurisdictions when it comes to good faith" and that "[a] term of good faith is then implied almost by way of apology to the parties." [10]

This case was one of a number of cases relied on in argument before the High Court of Australia in the case of Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council , [11] however the court dealt with the dispute without needing to consider the issue, [12] "technically reserv[ing] for another day [their] conclusive response" to the question of implied terms of good faith. [8] As of June 2017, the case has yet to be considered in any other High Court cases. [13]

See also

Related Research Articles

Breach of contract Type of civil wrong in contract law

Breach of contract is a legal cause of action and a type of civil wrong, in which a binding agreement or bargained-for exchange is not honored by one or more of the parties to the contract by non-performance or interference with the other party's performance. Breach occurs when a party to a contract fails to fulfill its obligation(s), whether partially or wholly, as described in the contract, or communicates an intent to fail the obligation or otherwise appears not to be able to perform its obligation under the contract. Where there is breach of contract, the resulting damages will have to be paid by the party breaching the contract to the aggrieved party.

Hungry Jacks Australian fast food franchise

Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd. is an Australian fast food franchise of the Burger King Corporation. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Competitive Foods Australia, a privately held company owned by Jack Cowin. Hungry Jack's owns and operates or sub-licences all of the Burger King/Hungry Jack's restaurants in Australia.

Illusory promise

In contract law, an illusory promise is one that courts will not enforce. This is in contrast with a contract, which is a promise that courts will enforce. A promise may be illusory for a number of reasons. In common law countries this usually results from failure or lack of consideration.

Jack Cowin is a Canadian-Australian businessman and entrepreneur with a long-term involvement in franchised fast food chains in Australia and Canada. Cowin brought KFC to Australia, founded and owns Hungry Jack's, which is the Burger King franchise in Australia, and has at various stages controlled the Domino's Pizza franchise in Australia prior to its 2005 listing on the ASX.

Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985), is a notable case in United States civil procedure that came before the Supreme Court of the United States addressing personal jurisdiction.

The law of contract in Australia is similar to other Anglo-American common law jurisdictions.

Good faith (law)

In contract law, the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing is a general presumption that the parties to a contract will deal with each other honestly, fairly, and in good faith, so as to not destroy the right of the other party or parties to receive the benefits of the contract. It is implied in a number of contract types in order to reinforce the express covenants or promises of the contract.

Contractual term Any provision forming part of a contract

A contractual term is "any provision forming part of a contract". Each term gives rise to a contractual obligation, breach of which can give rise to litigation. Not all terms are stated expressly and some terms carry less legal gravity as they are peripheral to the objectives of the contract.

English contract law Law of contracts in England and Wales

English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.

The majority of the locations of international fast-food restaurant chain Burger King are privately owned franchises. While the majority of franchisees are smaller operations, several have grown into major corporations in their own right. At the end of the company's fiscal year in 2015, Burger King reported it had more than 15,000 outlets in 84 countries; of these, approximately 50% are in the United States and 99.9% are privately owned and operated. The company locations employ more than 37,000 people who serve approximately 11.4 million customers daily.

The legal issues of Burger King include several legal disputes and lawsuits involving the international fast food restaurant chain Burger King (BK) as both plaintiff and defendant in the years since its founding in 1954. These have involved almost every aspect of the company's operations. Depending on the ownership and executive staff at the time of these incidents, the company's responses to these challenges have ranged from a conciliatory dialog with its critics and litigants to a more aggressive opposition with questionable tactics and negative consequences. The company's response to these various issues has drawn praise, scorn, and accusations of political appeasement from different parties over the years.

Competitive Foods Australia (CFA) is the largest franchiser of restaurants in Australia. It is owned and operated by Jack Cowin. Its units are Hungry Jack's and, previously, some KFC stores.

Contract Legally binding document establishing rights and duties between parties

A contract is a legally binding agreement that defines and governs the rights and duties between or among its parties. A contract is legally enforceable when it meets the requirements of applicable law. A contract typically involves the exchange of goods, services, money, or a promise of any of those. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or cancellation.

<i>Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw</i>

Southern Foundries (1926) Ltd v Shirlaw [1940] AC 701 is an important English contract law and company law case. In the field of contracts it is well known for MacKinnon LJ's decision in the Court of Appeal, where he put forth the "officious bystander" formulation for determining what terms should be implied into agreements by the courts. In the field of company law, it is known primarily to stand for the principle that damages may be sought for breach of contract by a director even though a contract may de facto constrain the exercise of powers to sack people found in the company's constitution.

Certainty in English law sets out rules for how judges will interpret, sever or put contracts, trusts and other voluntary obligations into effect.

<i>Bhasin v Hrynew</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Bhasin v Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 is a leading Canadian contract law case, concerning good faith as a basic organizing principle in contractual relations in Canada's common law jurisdictions.

<i>Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corp Ltd</i>

Yam Seng Pte Ltd v International Trade Corporation Ltd [2013] EWHC 111 is an English contract law case, concerning the principle of good faith. The case posited that English law should recognize a limited form of good faith as an implied contract term.

<i>Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi</i>

Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive.

<i>Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker</i>

Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker is a leading Australian judgment of the High Court which unanimously and firmly rejected the proposition that contracts of employment in Australia should contain an implied term of mutual trust and confidence.

<i>Scheck v. Burger King Corp.</i>

Scheck v. Burger King Corp. (756 F. Supp. 543 was a case of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida in which it considered motions for summary judgement brought by defendant Burger King Corporation concerning four counts raised by Plaintiff Scheck who alleged that defendant "breached an implied non-competition agreement, an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing an implied contract created by promissory estoppel and the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act" which plaintiff alleged incorporates the proceeding three claims. Burger King moved for summary judgement on the basis that Scheck's claims were insufficient "as a matter of law", were barred by the Massachusetts Statute of Frauds, or were released by the plaintiff as a direct result of two releases executed by Scheck in 1985 and 1986, respectively. The case invoked legal questions concerning the covenant of good faith and fair dealing related to legal protection of the territory rights of franchisees.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 187 , (2001) 69 NSWLR 558, Court of Appeal (NSW,Australia).
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Ellinghaus, M.P. (2005). Australian Cases on Contract (2005 ed (6th) ed.). Melbourne: Code Press. pp. 610–619. ISBN   978-0-9577941-5-3.
  3. 1 2 Allen, Reece (2001). "Would you like 'good faith' with that?". Proctor. 21: 26.
  4. 1 2 3 4 Baron, Adrian (2002). "'Good faith' and construction contracts — From small acorns large oaks grow". Australian Bar Review. 22: 54.
  5. ↑ Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2002] HCATrans 180 (19 April 2002), High Court (Australia).
  6. ↑ Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2002] HCATrans 578 (14 November 2002), High Court (Australia).
  7. ↑ Paterson, Jeannie (2001). "Good faith in commercial contracts? A franchising case study". Australian Business Law Review. 29: 270.
  8. 1 2 Horrigan, Bryan (2004). "The expansion of fairness-based business regulation – unconscionability, good faith and the law's informed conscience". Australian Business Law Review. 32: 159.
  9. ↑ Renard Constructions (ME) Pty Ltd v Minister for Public Works (1992) 26 NSWLR 234.
  10. 1 2 Carter, J W & Peden, Elisabeth (2003). "Good Faith in Australian Contract Law". Journal of Contract Law. 19: 155.
  11. ↑ Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council [2001] HCATrans 415 (6 September 2001).
  12. ↑ Royal Botanic Gardens and Domain Trust v South Sydney City Council [2002] HCA 5 , (2002) 240 CLR 45(14 February 2002).
  13. ↑ "Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd". LawCite search. Retrieved 4 June 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.