Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1507a (2026)

Notice required prior to offering for sale or selling franchise; fee; form and contents of notice; indorsement, return, and duration of notice; effect of compliance; penalty for failure to file notice; duty of franchisor with effective registration or exemption from registration; validity and enforceability of franchise documents; written notice of filing date and penalties; failure to notify franchisor.

✓ 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


445.1507a Notice required prior to offering for sale or selling franchise; fee; form and contents of notice; indorsement, return, and duration of notice; effect of compliance; penalty for failure to file notice; duty of franchisor with effective registration or exemption from registration; validity and enforceability of franchise documents; written notice of filing date and penalties; failure to notify franchisor.

Sec. 7a.

    (1) Prior to offering for sale or selling a franchise in this state, a person annually shall file a notice with the department along with the fee required in section 40. The form of the notice shall be prescribed by the department and shall require only the name of the franchisor; the name under which the franchisor intends to do business; and the franchisor's principal business address.

    (2) Upon receipt of a notice, the department shall indorse upon the notice the word "filed" and the date, and shall return the copy to the person who filed the notice. The notice shall be effective for a period of 1 year from the date of filing.

    (3) Upon compliance with this section and the other requirements of this act, a person may lawfully offer and sell a franchise in this state.

    (4) Failure to file the notice required in subsection (1) shall be punishable by a civil fine of not more than $100.00 for the first day a franchise is offered and each following day until the notice is filed.

    (5) A franchisor with an effective registration or exemption from registration on June 20, 1984 shall be considered to have filed the notice required under this section and, upon compliance with the other requirements of this act, may lawfully offer and sell a franchise in this state. A franchisor described in this subsection shall file annually the notice required in subsection (1) at the time prior to June 20, 1984 the franchisor was required to file its registration renewal statement.

    (6) Franchise documents containing provisions that were lawful before June 20, 1984, which documents contain provisions made void and unenforceable under section 27, shall be valid and enforceable until the first annual filing by the franchisor after June 20, 1984.

    (7) Within 60 days of the date a franchisor is required to file his or her notice as provided in subsection (1), the department shall notify in writing the franchisor of the date by which the notice must be filed and the penalties for failure to file.

    (8) Failure by the department to notify the franchisor as required by subsection (7) shall not relieve the franchisor from the requirement of complying with all of the provisions of this act.

History: Add. 1984, Act 92, Eff. June 20, 1984 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 213, Imd. Eff. Nov. 13, 1989

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2024 · leading case: Joe Dwyer, Inc v. Jaguar Cars, Inc, 423 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988).
Joe Dwyer, Inc v. Jaguar Cars, Inc, 423 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 445.1507a(1); MSA 19.854(7a)(1). In the alternative, plaintiff claimed that its 1981 franchise agreement was renewed by the parties’ conduct in 1982 and, therefore, § 11 applied.”
Oakland Fam. Restaurants, Inc. v. Am. Dairy Queen Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2024). · cites it 4× “But as both Dairy Queen and the Attorney General acknowledge, MCL § 445.1507a(6) contains a provision that appears to conflict with this anti-impairment clause by providing: Franchise documents containing provisions that were lawful before June 20, 1984, which documents contain…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1507a(1) — 1 case
Joe Dwyer, Inc v. Jaguar Cars, Inc, 423 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. Ct. App. 1988). “MCL 445.1507a(1); MSA 19.854(7a)(1). In the alternative, plaintiff claimed that its 1981 franchise agreement was renewed by the parties’ conduct in 1982 and, therefore, § 11 applied.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 445.1507a(6) — 1 case
Oakland Fam. Restaurants, Inc. v. Am. Dairy Queen Corp. (E.D. Mich. 2024). “But as both Dairy Queen and the Attorney General acknowledge, MCL § 445.1507a(6) contains a provision that appears to conflict with this anti-impairment clause by providing: Franchise documents containing provisions that were lawful before June 20, 1984, which documents contain…”
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.