Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1501 (2026)
Short title; construction.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
FRANCHISE INVESTMENT LAW
Act 269 of 1974
445.1501 Short title; construction.
Sec. 1.
This act shall be known and may be cited as the "franchise investment law". This act shall be broadly construed to effectuate its purpose of providing protection to the public.
History: 1974, Act 269, Eff. Oct. 15, 1974
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1982–2024 · leading case: Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985).
Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985). “Rudzewicz and MacShara then filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking damages for alleged violations by Burger King of Michigan's Franchise Investment Law, Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1501 et seq. (1979).”
Key v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 918 P.2d 350 (N.M. 1996). “705/1-44 (Smith-Hurd 1994); Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.1501 et seq. (West 1989); Minn.”
Liss v. Lewiston-Richards, Inc, 732 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 2007). “"Trade or commerce" does not include the purchase or sale of a franchise, but does include pyramid and chain promotions, as "franchise", "pyramid", and "chain promotions" are defined in the franchise investment law, 1974 PA 269 , MCL 445.”
Martino v. Cottman Transmission Sys., Inc., 554 N.W.2d 17 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996). “§ 445.1501 et seq.; M.S.A. § 19.854(1) et seq.”
Michelson v. Voison, 658 N.W.2d 188 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “§ 445.1501 et seq. Maids, supra at 510-512 , 569 N.”
Rembert v. Ryan’s Fam. Steak Houses, Inc, 596 N.W.2d 208 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999). “In McMahon and Rodriguez, the Court considered whether arbitration would undermine the criminal enforcement provisions of the RICO and the securities statutes. The Court's decision to uphold arbitration even over these considerations underscores the favored position of…”
Ward's Equip., Inc. v. New Holland North Am., Inc., 493 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1997). “” *386 And, the trial court did not err by rejecting the dealer’s argument and by ruling that the Michigan Franchise Investment Law, Mich. Comp. Laws, §§ 445.1501, et seq. (1989), does not govern this case.”
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “The agreement was titled “Dealer Supply Franchise Agreement” because it constituted a franchise for purposes of the federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.”
Watkins & Son Pet Supplies v. The Iams Co., 254 F.3d 607 (6th Cir. 2001). “For the foregoing reasons, we find that Watkins’s reliance on Iams’s representations was unreasonable as a matter of law, and therefore, that the district court properly granted summary judgment on Watkins’s claims for fraud and promissory es-toppel.”
Johnson v. QFD, Inc., 807 N.W.2d 719 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “In Maids Int'l, 224 Mich App at 511-512 , this Court considered whether the plaintiffs violation of Michigan’s Franchise Investment Law (FIL), MCL 445.1501 et seq., rendered void and unenforceable certain franchise agreements entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants.”
Kerrigan v. Visalus, Inc., 112 F. Supp. 3d 580 (E.D. Mich. 2015). “§ 445.1501 et seq. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants’ promotion of the ViSalus Program constituted the offering of a franchise under the MFIL, and that Defendants’ conduct violated the MFIL.”
Hartman & Eichhorn Bldg. Co., Inc. v. Dailey, 701 N.W.2d 749 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005). “"Trade or commerce" does not include the purchase or sale of a franchise, but does include pyramid and chain promotions, as "franchise", "pyramid", and "chain promotions" are defined in [MCL 445.1501 to 445.1545]. Resolution of the issue of individual versus company liability…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.