N.J. Stat. » Title 56 — TRADE NAMES, TRADE-MARKS AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES
New Jersey Statutes

N.J. Stat. § 56:10-10 (2026)

Action against franchisor; damages; injunction; costs

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaN.J. Stat. CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Any franchisee may bring an action against its franchisor for violation of this act in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey to recover damages sustained by reason of any violation of this act and, where appropriate, shall be entitled to injunctive relief. Such franchisee, if successful, shall also be entitled to the costs of the action including but not limited to reasonable attorney's fees.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1974–2025 · leading case: Mall Chevrolet Inc v. Gen. Motors LLC, 99 F.4th 622 (3rd Cir. 2024).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mall Chevrolet Inc v. Gen. Motors LLC, 99 F.4th 622 (3rd Cir. 2024). · cites it 3× “See N.J. Stat. § 56:10-10 (“Any franchisee may bring an action against its franchisor for violation of this act .”
Cooper Distrib. Co. v. Amana Refrigeration, Inc., 180 F.3d 542 (3rd Cir. 1999). · cites it 2× “” N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-10 (West 1998). But in Westfield, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that a franchisor who in good faith and for a bona fide reason terminates, cancels or fails to renew a franchise for any reason other than the franchisee’s substantial breach of its…”
Ocean City Express Co. v. Atlas Van Lines, Inc., 194 F. Supp. 3d 314 (D.N.J. 2016). · cites it 2× “Rather, the statute states, more generally, that “[a]ny franchisee may bring an action against its franchisor for violation of this act ... to recover damages sustained by reason of any violation of this act and, where appropriate, shall be entitled to injunctive relief.”
Cent. Jersey Freightliner, Inc. v. Freightliner Corp., 987 F. Supp. 289 (D.N.J. 1997). · cites it 2× “” NJFPA § 56:10-10. Plaintiffs concede that CJF failed to comply with many of the franchise requirements as set forth in defendant’s termination letter, but contend that defendant orchestrated CJF’s breaches.”
Liberty Lincoln-Mercury v. Ford Motor Co., in No. 96-5762. Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., in No. 97-5189. Liberty Lincoln-Mercury, Inc., in No. 97-5190 v. Ford Motor Co., 134 F.3d 557 (3rd Cir. 1998). “25 74 Liberty also challenges the district court's conclusion that "[b]ecause Liberty has asserted its claim under N.J.S.A. 56:10-10 and 56:10-15, it is not entitled to prejudgment interest at 12% under N.”
Carlos v. Philips Bus. Sys., Inc., 556 F. Supp. 769 (E.D.N.Y 1983). “Carlos has utilized this section as the predicate for the portion of his case, involving D & S Word Processing of Trenton, claiming that PBSI has violated the substantive provisions of the Act. To prevail on this portion of the case, plaintiff must satisfy two elements.”
Virzi Subaru, Inc. v. Subaru of New England, Inc., 742 F.2d 677 (1st Cir. 1984). “The only persuasive precedent we have found in state law arose under the New ' Jersey franchise statute providing that a “successful” franchisee litigant shall recover reasonable attorney’s fees.”
Philips Bus. Sys., Inc. v. Exec. Bus. Sys., Inc., 570 F. Supp. 1343 (E.D.N.Y 1983). · cites it 2× “N.J.Stat.Ann. § 56:10-10 (West Supp.1982-83).”
Liberty Lincoln-Mercury v. Ford Motor Co., 134 F.3d 557 (3rd Cir. 1998). “25 Liberty also challenges the district court’s conclusion that “[bjecause Liberty has asserted its claim under N.J.S.A. 56:10-10 and 56:10-15, it is not entitled to prejudgment interest at 12% under N.”
Mall Chevrolet, Inc. v. Gen. Motors LLC (D.N.J. 2021). · cites it 5× “N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:10-10 (stating that “[a]ny franchisee may bring an action against its franchisor for violation of this act .”
Mariniello v. Shell Oil Co., 368 F. Supp. 1401 (D.N.J. 1974). “, having to defend an action brought in a state court for injunctive relief and damages, N.J.S.A. 56:10-10) that may stem from its so limiting the grant of its federally registered trademarks.”
York Mech. Corp. Vs. Kinney Constr. Servs., Inc. (l-1229-19, Hudson Cnty. & Statewide) (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2021). · cites it 2× “[N.J.S.A. 56:10-10.] We held that unlike other statutes which expressly preclude foreign forum selection clauses, N.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
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.