Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 445 / Act 269 of 1974
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504 (2026)

Arrangements between franchisor and franchisee to which act applicable; making offer or sale of franchise in state; accepting offer to sell in state; communication of acceptance.

✓ 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


445.1504 Arrangements between franchisor and franchisee to which act applicable; making offer or sale of franchise in state; accepting offer to sell in state; communication of acceptance.

Sec. 4.

    (1) This act applies to all written or oral arrangements between a franchisor and franchisee in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise, including, though not limited to, the franchise offering, the franchise agreement, sales of goods or services, leases and mortgages of real or personal property, promises to pay, security interests, pledges, insurance, advertising, construction or installation contracts, servicing contracts, and all other arrangements in which the franchisor or subfranchisor has an interest.

    (2) An offer or sale of a franchise is made in this state when an offer to sell is made in this state, or an offer to buy is accepted in this state, or, if the franchisee is domiciled in this state, the franchised business is or will be operated in this state.

    (3) An offer to sell is made in this state when the offer either originates from this state or is directed by the offeror to this state and received at the place to which it is directed. An offer to sell is accepted in this state when acceptance is communicated to the offeror in this state. An acceptance is communicated to the offeror in this state when the offeree directs it to the offeror in this state reasonably believing the offeror to be in this state and it is received at the place to which it is directed.

    (4) An offer to sell is not made in this state merely because a publisher circulates or there is circulated on his behalf in this state a bona fide newspaper or other publication of general, regular, and paid circulation which has had more than 2/3 of its circulation outside this state during the past 12 months, or a radio or television program originating outside this state is received in this state.

History: 1974, Act 269, Eff. Oct. 15, 1974

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2021 · leading case: Ward's Equip., Inc. v. New Holland North Am., Inc., 493 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ward's Equip., Inc. v. New Holland North Am., Inc., 493 S.E.2d 516 (Va. 1997). “See Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504 ; Hacienda Mexican Restaurants v.”
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc.(r & M), 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Donald W. Geib, D/B/A Rochester Colonial Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., 29 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 1994). “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.1504(1). Generic franchise relationship laws like the MFIL address a perceived inequality of bargaining power among the parties to the franchise agreement by providing franchisees with a variety of rights designed to prevent abuses.”
Cook v. Little Caesar Enter., Inc., 972 F. Supp. 400 (E.D. Mich. 1997). “§ 445.1504 which states, in relevant part, that: "This act applies to all written or oral arrangements between a franchisor and franchisee in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise, including, though not limited to, the franchise offering, [and] the franchise agreement.”
Hacienda Mexican Restaurants of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Grp., Inc., 489 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “MCL 445.1504(1); MSA 19.854(4X1) provides in pertinent part that "[t]his act applies to all written or oral arrangements between a franchisor and franchisee in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise.”
Bye v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 733 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Mich. 2010). ““Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Pitcairn Franchise Dev., LLC v. JTH Tax LLC d/b/a/ Liberty Tax Serv. (E.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 2× “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504 (2) (emphasis added).”
Pitcairn Franchise Dev., LLC v. JTH Tax LLC d/b/a/ Liberty Tax Serv. (E.D. Va. 2021). “Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504 (2) (emphasis added).”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504(1) — 5 cases
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc., 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Hamade v. Sunoco, Inc.(r & M), 721 N.W.2d 233 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Donald W. Geib, D/B/A Rochester Colonial Amoco v. Amoco Oil Co., a Maryland Corp., 29 F.3d 1050 (6th Cir. 1994). “Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. § 445.1504(1). Generic franchise relationship laws like the MFIL address a perceived inequality of bargaining power among the parties to the franchise agreement by providing franchisees with a variety of rights designed to prevent abuses.”
Bye v. Nationwide Mut. Ins., 733 F. Supp. 2d 805 (E.D. Mich. 2010). ““Because the MFIL seeks to protect prospective franchisees by imposing various requirements on the franchisor in connection with the offer and sale of a franchise, see MCL 445.1504(1), whether a contract or agreement constitutes a franchise for purposes of the MFIL must be…”
Hacienda Mexican Restaurants of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Grp., Inc., 489 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 445.1504(1); MSA 19.854(4X1) provides in pertinent part that "[t]his act applies to all written or oral arrangements between a franchisor and franchisee in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1504(2) — 1 case
Hacienda Mexican Restaurants of Kalamazoo Corp. v. Hacienda Franchise Grp., Inc., 489 N.W.2d 108 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992). “MCL 445.1504(1); MSA 19.854(4X1) provides in pertinent part that "[t]his act applies to all written or oral arrangements between a franchisor and franchisee in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise.”
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.