Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 407
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.410 (2026)

Double damages, when

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  407.410.  Double damages, when — limitation on actions — cancellation of franchise without notice grounds for award of damages. — 1.  Any contract made in violation of section 407.405 is void and any person who, directly or through the use of agents or intermediaries, induces or causes another person to participate in a pyramid sales scheme will be liable to that person in civil damages in an amount equal to the sum of twice the amount of consideration paid, and in the case of any successful action to enforce such liability, the costs of the action together with a reasonable attorney's fee, as determined by the court.  An action under this section may be brought in the circuit court having venue within five years from the date on which the consideration was paid.

  2.  A franchisee suffering damage as a result of the failure to give notice as required of the cancellation or termination of a franchise, may institute legal proceedings under the provisions of sections 407.400 to 407.420 against the franchisor who cancelled or terminated his franchise in the circuit court for the circuit in which the franchisor or his agent resides or can be located.  When the franchisee prevails in any such action in the circuit court, he may be awarded a recovery of damages sustained to include loss of goodwill, costs of the suit, and any equitable relief that the court deems proper.

­­--------

(L. 1974 H.B. 1132 § 3, A.L. 1975 H.B. 810 § 3)

(1980) General intent of the legislature in the enactment of statutes prohibiting pyramid sales schemes is to buttress a strong public policy against pyramid sales schemes involving cover or disguise of some seemingly legitimate commercial transaction. State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Wahl (A.), 600 S.W.2d 175.

(1987) Franchisor who fails to provide time notice of termination to a franchisee under section 407.405 the franchisee is not entitled to recover punitive damages in an action brought pursuant to this section. Ridings v. Thoele, Inc., 739 S.W.2d 547 (Mo. banc.).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1980–2002 · leading case: ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272 (W.D. Mo. 1982).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272 (W.D. Mo. 1982). · cites it 3× “§ 407.410. 26 For purposes of still additional clarity, we expressly conclude that the three conclusions of law proposed by Coors in regard to the stipulated questions considered in this part of our memorandum opinion, as set forth in the footnote below, should be and are…”
Saey v. Xerox Corp., 31 F. Supp. 2d 692 (E.D. Mo. 1998). · cites it 2× “Defendants also argue that the damages plaintiffs seek in Counts II and VII are limited by the Missouri Franchise Termination Notification Act to "loss of goodwill, costs of the suit, and any equitable relief that the court deems proper.”
State ex rel. Ashcroft v. Wahl, 600 S.W.2d 175 (Mo. Ct. App. 1980). “Although § 407.410 provides for double damages to a person induced or caused to enter a pyramid scheme on a contract made in violation of § 407.”
Mikulich v. Wright, 85 S.W.3d 117 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 5× “Section 407.410 1 provides that persons who induce others to participate in pyramid sales schemes are hable in a civil action for twice the “consideration” that the inducer persuaded the participants to pay.”
Lewis G. Moore & Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 424 (W.D. Mo. 1991). “§§ 407.410(1), 537.300, 537.330, 537.-340 (each clearly specifying double or treble damages).”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.410(1): 1 case
Lewis G. Moore & Co. v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 756 F. Supp. 424 (W.D. Mo. 1991). “§§ 407.410(1), 537.300, 537.330, 537.-340 (each clearly specifying double or treble damages).”
Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.410(2): 1 case
ABA Distributors, Inc. v. Adolph Coors Co., 542 F. Supp. 1272 (W.D. Mo. 1982). “§ 407.410. 26 For purposes of still additional clarity, we expressly conclude that the three conclusions of law proposed by Coors in regard to the stipulated questions considered in this part of our memorandum opinion, as set forth in the footnote below, should be and are…”
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.