Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 80C.14 (2026)

Unfair Practices

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subdivision 1.Prohibition.

No person, whether by means of a term or condition of a franchise or otherwise, shall engage in any unfair or inequitable practice in contravention of such rules as the commissioner may adopt defining as to franchises the words "unfair and inequitable." For the purpose of rules defining the words "unfair and inequitable," the commissioner may specifically recognize classifications of franchises including but not limited to the classifications of motor vehicle fuel franchises, motor vehicle franchises, hardware franchises, and franchises which require that the franchisee make an initial, unfinanced investment in excess of $200,000. A violation of this section is enjoinable by a court of competent jurisdiction. Irreparable harm to the franchisee will be presumed if there is a violation of this section by a person who is required to register under section 80C.02, but who fails to do so.

A temporary injunction may be granted under this section without requiring the posting of any bond or security. A bond or security is required if a temporary restraining order is granted.

Subd. 2.Acts constituting.

All franchise contracts or agreements, other than those classifications of franchises specifically recognized by the commissioner under subdivision 1, and any other device or practice of a franchisor must conform to subdivisions 3 and 4. It is an unfair and inequitable practice for a person to commit an act specified in subdivisions 3 to 5.

Subd. 3.Termination or cancellation.

(a) No person may terminate or cancel a franchise unless: (i) that person has given written notice setting forth all the reasons for the termination or cancellation at least 90 days in advance of termination or cancellation, and (ii) the recipient of the notice fails to correct the reasons stated for termination or cancellation in the notice within 60 days of receipt of the notice; except that the notice is effective immediately upon receipt where the alleged grounds for termination or cancellation are:

(1) voluntary abandonment of the franchise relationship by the franchisee;

(2) the conviction of the franchisee of an offense directly related to the business conducted pursuant to the franchise; or

(3) failure to cure a default under the franchise agreement which materially impairs the good will associated with the franchisor's trade name, trademark, service mark, logotype or other commercial symbol after the franchisee has received written notice to cure of at least 24 hours in advance thereof.

(b) No person may terminate or cancel a franchise except for good cause. "Good cause" means failure by the franchisee to substantially comply with the material and reasonable franchise requirements imposed by the franchisor including, but not limited to:

(1) the bankruptcy or insolvency of the franchisee;

(2) assignment for the benefit of creditors or similar disposition of the assets of the franchise business;

(3) voluntary abandonment of the franchise business;

(4) conviction or a plea of guilty or no contest to a charge of violating any law relating to the franchise business; or

(5) any act by or conduct of the franchisee which materially impairs the good will associated with the franchisor's trademark, trade name, service mark, logotype or other commercial symbol.

Subd. 4.Failure to renew.

Unless the failure to renew a franchise is for good cause as defined in subdivision 3, paragraph (b), and the franchisee has failed to correct reasons for termination as required by subdivision 3, no person may fail to renew a franchise unless (1) the franchisee has been given written notice of the intention not to renew at least 180 days in advance of the expiration of the franchise; and (2) the franchisee has been given an opportunity to operate the franchise over a sufficient period of time to enable the franchisee to recover the fair market value of the franchise as a going concern, as determined and measured from the date of the failure to renew. No franchisor may refuse to renew a franchise if the refusal is for the purpose of converting the franchisee's business premises to an operation that will be owned by the franchisor for its own account.

Subd. 5.Withholding consent to transfer.

It is unfair and inequitable for a person to unreasonably withhold consent to an assignment, transfer, or sale of the franchise whenever the franchisee to be substituted meets the present qualifications and standards required of the franchisees of the particular franchisor.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 44 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1977–2025 · leading case: Pac. Equip. & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Pac. Equip. & Irrigation, Inc. v. Toro Co., 519 N.W.2d 911 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 40× “If Pacific is actually a franchisee, it will likely be able to prove that Toro terminated its distributorship without adequate notice or good cause in violation of Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 3 and by failing to renew the franchise agreement in violation of Minn.”

Hughes v. Sinclair Mktg., Inc., 389 N.W.2d 194 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 9× “B (promulgated pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 2). The supplier may, however, cancel its relationship by mutual agreement or good faith voluntary or involuntary decision by the franchisor to discontinue doing business at the site.”

Carlock v. Pillsbury Co., 719 F. Supp. 791 (D. Minnesota 1989). · cites it 4× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, *810 subd. 3. Third, the statute makes injunctive relief available to remedy “unfair or inequitable practices.”

RJM Sales & Mktg., Inc. v. Banfi Prods. Corp., 546 F. Supp. 1368 (D. Minnesota 1982). · cites it 4× “Count 1 alleges that Banfi engaged in “unfair or inequitable practices” including terminating RJM as its broker without giving 60 days notice, terminating the brokerage relationship without good cause, competing, or allowing others to compete, with RJM in the subject territory,…”

Banbury v. Omnitrition Int'l, Inc., 533 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “The Banburys allege a violation of Minn.Stat. § 80C.14 (1992). But when the Banburys were terminated in February 1992, the Act did not yet provide for a civil cause of action for violation of that section.”

Upper Midwest Sales Co. v. Ecolab, Inc., 577 N.W.2d 236 (Minn. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 1 (1996); Toro, 519 N.”

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989). · cites it 2× “1979) (in-junctive relief is the only available remedy for violation of Minn.Stat. § 80C.14). By making injunctive relief the sole remedy, the Minnesota Legislature appears to have expressed a policy that the inadequacy of the remedy at law is statutorily presumed when there is…”

Jacobsen v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 392 N.W.2d 868 (Minn. 1986). · cites it 4× “For example in 1984, the legislature repealed section 80C.146 effective July 1, 1986. 1984 Minn.”

OT Indus., Inc. v. OT-tehdas Oy Santasalo-Sohlberg AB, 346 N.W.2d 162 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “Even if the Franchise Act applies, the record indicates that OT-tehdas may well have had good cause to terminate within the meaning of Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 2(b) (1982). Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court clearly abused its discretion.”

Martinizing Int'l, LLC v. BC Cleaners, LLC, 855 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “See Minn. Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 3. To prevail on its claim of trademark infringement, Martinizing must prove that defendants’ conduct was “likely to cause confusion” as to the origin or approval of products or services.”

Auto-Chlor Sys. of Minnesota, Inc. v. JohnsonDiversey, 328 F. Supp. 2d 980 (D. Minnesota 2004). · cites it 4× “Finally, they assert a claim under the Minnesota Franchise Act, Minn.Stat. § 80C.14. (Pis.’ Resp. to Defs.”

Dunn v. Nat'l Beverage Corp., 745 N.W.2d 549 (Minn. 2008). · cites it 2× “Under Minn.Stat. § 80C.14, subd. 3(b), except for circumstances not applicable here, a franchisor cannot terminate or cancel a franchise except for good cause.”

Show all 44 citing cases →

— Minn. Stat. § 80C.14(1) — 2 cases

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 871 F.2d 734 (8th Cir. 1989). “1979) (in-junctive relief is the only available remedy for violation of Minn.Stat. § 80C.14). By making injunctive relief the sole remedy, the Minnesota Legislature appears to have expressed a policy that the inadequacy of the remedy at law is statutorily presumed when there is…”

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 858 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir. 1988).

— Minn. Stat. § 80C.14(3) — 2 cases

Modern Comput. Sys., Inc. v. Modern Banking Sys., Inc. Modern Banking Sys. of S. Wisconsin, 858 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir. 1988).

Instructional Sys., Inc. v. Comput. Curriculum Corp., 826 F. Supp. 831 (D.N.J. 1993).

— Minn. Stat. § 80C.14(3)(a) — 1 case

Lakeside Surfaces, Inc. v. Cambria Co., LLC (W.D. Mich. 2020).

— Minn. Stat. § 80C.14(3)(b) — 1 case

Lakeside Surfaces, Inc. v. Cambria Co., LLC (W.D. Mich. 2020).

— Minn. Stat. § 80C.14(4) — 1 case

Gen. Aviation, Inc. v. The Cessna Aircraft Co., 13 F.3d 178 (6th Cir. 1993).

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.