§
Subdivision 1.Documents; untrue material facts and omitted material changes.
No person may make or cause to be made any untrue statement of a material fact in any application, notice, report, or other document filed with the commissioner under sections 80C.01 to 80C.22, or omit to state in any such application, notice, report or other document any material fact which is required to be stated therein, or fail to notify the commissioner of any material change as required by section 80C.07.
§
Subd. 2.Communications; untrue or omitted material facts.
No person may offer or sell a franchise in this state by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or which omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.
§
Subd. 3.Misrepresentations related to registration and filing.
No person may represent or cause to be represented to any prospective purchaser of a franchise that the filing of any document under sections 80C.01 to 80C.22 or the registration or exemption from registration of a franchise constitutes a finding by the commissioner that any document filed under sections 80C.01 to 80C.22 is true, complete, and not misleading, or that the commissioner has passed in any way upon the merits of any franchise, and no person may represent that a franchise is registered or exempted from registration when in fact, such is not the case.
Notes of Decisions
Randall v. Lady of Am. Franchise Corp., 532 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (D. Minnesota 2007).
· cites it 23× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.13 subd. 2. The UFOC that Lady of America filed with the state and provided to plaintiffs disavows any earnings claims as to prospective franchisees’ actual or potential earnings, stating: We do not furnish or authorize [our] salespersons to furnish any oral or…”
Teng Moua v. Jani-King of Minnesota, Inc., 810 F. Supp. 2d 882 (D. Minnesota 2011).
· cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.13. Yang’s common law fraud and MFA claims fail because Jani-King made no untrue statements of material fact or misrepresentations.”
Avery v. Solargizer Int'l, Inc., 427 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 10× “, on the issue of violation of Minn.Stat. § 80C.13, subd. 2 (1978)? 4. Did the trial court err by granting summary judgment in favor of Anderson, Sr.”
Long John Silver's Inc. v. Nickleson, 923 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (W.D. Ky. 2013).
· cites it 5× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.13. Defendant specifically alleges that A & W provided misleading and untrue information and omitted material facts regarding the estimated costs, revenues and profits of the Inver Grove Franchise.”
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., 375 N.W.2d 875 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986).
· cites it 8× “The jury found that Sinclair violated Minn.Stat. § 80C.13 and Minn.Regs. SDiv. 1718: No person may offer or sell a franchise in this state by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or which omits to state a material fact…”
Noble v. C.E.D.O., Inc., 374 N.W.2d 734 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
· cites it 4× “01 (1984), parallel to Minn.Stat. § 80C.13, subd. 2 (1984), under which respondents were found to have committed violations, requires scienter.”
Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. 1986).
· cites it 2× “Under section 80C.13, subdivision 2, misrepresentation in connection with the offer or sale of a franchise is prohibited: No person may offer or sell a franchise in this state by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or…”
Cousins Subs Sys., Inc. v. McKinney, 59 F. Supp. 2d 816 (E.D. Wis. 1999).
“Minnesota Franchise Law McKinney first contends that Cousins violated Minn.Stat. § 80C.13, subd. 2, which provides: No person may offer or sell a franchise in this state by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or which…”
Louis DeGidio, Inc. v. Indus. Combustion, LLC (D. Minnesota 2021).
· cites it 2× “The MFA defines a franchise as a business relationship with three characteristics: (1) the franchisee is permitted to engage in business using the franchisor’s trade name, logotype, and other defining characteristics; (2) both parties have a community of interest in marketing…”
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.