Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020 (2026)

Liability of franchise seller; defenses; amount of recovery; attorney fees; joint and several liability; limitation on action; indemnification of corporation; right of contribution

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      650.020 Liability of franchise seller; defenses; amount of recovery; attorney fees; joint and several liability; limitation on action; indemnification of corporation; right of contribution. (1) Any person who sells a franchise is liable as provided in subsection (3) of this section to the franchisee if the seller:

      (a) Employs any device, scheme or artifice to defraud; or

      (b) Makes any untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading.

      (2) It shall be an affirmative defense to any action for legal or equitable remedies brought under subsection (1) of this section if the franchisee knew of the untruth or omission.

      (3) The franchisee may recover any amounts to which the franchisee would be entitled upon an action for a rescission. Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, the court may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party in an action under this section.

      (4) The court may not award attorney fees to a prevailing defendant under the provisions of subsection (3) of this section if the action under this section is maintained as a class action pursuant to ORCP 32.

      (5) Every person who directly or indirectly controls a franchisor liable under subsection (1) of this section, every partner, officer or director of the franchisor, every person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, and every person who participates or materially aids in the sale of a franchise is also liable jointly and severally to the same extent as the franchisor, unless the nonseller did not know, and, in the exercise of reasonable care, could not have known, of the existence of the facts on which the liability is based.

      (6) An action may not be commenced under this section more than three years after the sale.

      (7) A corporation which is liable under ORS 650.005 to 650.100 shall have a right of indemnification against any of its principal executive officers, directors and controlling persons whose willful violation of any provision of ORS 650.005 to 650.100 gave rise to the liability. All persons liable under ORS 650.005 to 650.100 shall have a right of contribution against all other persons similarly liable, based upon each person’s proportionate share of the total liability, except:

      (a) A person willfully misrepresenting or failing to disclose shall not have any right of contribution against any other person guilty merely of a negligent violation; and

      (b) A principal executive officer, director, or controlling person shall not have any right of contribution against the corporation to which the person sustains that relationship. [1973 c.509 §4; 1979 c.284 §185; 1995 c.696 §40]

 

(Administration)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1994–2010 · leading case: Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 908 P.2d 300 (Or. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 908 P.2d 300 (Or. 1995). · cites it 17× “ORS 650.020. The Court of Appeals held that there is no right to trial by jury under that statute.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 879 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 13× “” Tualatin Tire argues that it brought an action at law for damages under ORS 650.020 and was entitled to a jury trial.”
Campbell v. Southland Corp., 871 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 6× “Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging separate claims for common law misrepresentation, violation of the Oregon Franchise Law, ORS 650.020(1), breach of contract and wrongful termination.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 932 P.2d 1141 (Or. 1997). “ORS 650.020. *54 Former opinion modified.”
Towne v. Robbins, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Or. 2004). · cites it 6× “13, 1988) (rejecting argument limitations period under the Oregon Act could be measured from discovery of “defendants’ continuing fraud,” because the “plain language of section 650.020[6] does not mention tolling nor condition the limitations period on discovery of the…”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “641(2) (authorizing prevailing party attorney fee award in action for unlawful debt collection practices); ORS 650.020(3) (providing for award of attorney fees to “prevailing party’ in action for deceptive franchise marketing practices); ORS 653.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Forestry v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 999 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). · cites it 14× “The court then proceeded to a contextual examination of the statute’s historical evolution, focusing particularly on the content of ORS 650.020. Although the court ultimately concluded that, because of other ambiguities, context was not conclusive, its discussion of the OFA’s…”
Towne v. Robbins, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Or. 2004). “See ORS650.020(3); ORS 166.725. The Townes do not brief the merits of the propriety of awarding attorney fees pursuant to these statutes, presumably because they believed voluntarily dropping these claims would preclude an award of attorney fees.”
Juiceme, LLC v. Booster Juice Ltd. P'ship, 730 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (D. Or. 2010). “and Canada Defendants for (1) violation of the Oregon Franchise Act, Oregon Revised Statutes § 650.020 et seq.; (2) intentional misrepresentation; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4) false promise; (5) fraudulent suppression of fact; (6) unfair business practices, Oregon…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020(1) — 3 cases
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 879 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” Tualatin Tire argues that it brought an action at law for damages under ORS 650.020 and was entitled to a jury trial.”
Campbell v. Southland Corp., 871 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging separate claims for common law misrepresentation, violation of the Oregon Franchise Law, ORS 650.020(1), breach of contract and wrongful termination.”
Towne v. Robbins, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Or. 2004). “13, 1988) (rejecting argument limitations period under the Oregon Act could be measured from discovery of “defendants’ continuing fraud,” because the “plain language of section 650.020[6] does not mention tolling nor condition the limitations period on discovery of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020(1)(b) — 1 case
Campbell v. Southland Corp., 871 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging separate claims for common law misrepresentation, violation of the Oregon Franchise Law, ORS 650.020(1), breach of contract and wrongful termination.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020(3) — 5 cases
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 879 P.2d 193 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “” Tualatin Tire argues that it brought an action at law for damages under ORS 650.020 and was entitled to a jury trial.”
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Tualatin Tire & Auto, Inc., 908 P.2d 300 (Or. 1995). “ORS 650.020. The Court of Appeals held that there is no right to trial by jury under that statute.”
Mantia v. Hanson, 77 P.3d 1143 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). “641(2) (authorizing prevailing party attorney fee award in action for unlawful debt collection practices); ORS 650.020(3) (providing for award of attorney fees to “prevailing party’ in action for deceptive franchise marketing practices); ORS 653.”
Towne v. Robbins, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1105 (D. Or. 2004). “See ORS650.020(3); ORS 166.725. The Townes do not brief the merits of the propriety of awarding attorney fees pursuant to these statutes, presumably because they believed voluntarily dropping these claims would preclude an award of attorney fees.”
State ex rel. Dep't of Forestry v. Louisiana Pac. Corp., 999 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 2000). “The court then proceeded to a contextual examination of the statute’s historical evolution, focusing particularly on the content of ORS 650.020. Although the court ultimately concluded that, because of other ambiguities, context was not conclusive, its discussion of the OFA’s…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020(6) — 1 case
Towne v. Robbins, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1269 (D. Or. 2004). “13, 1988) (rejecting argument limitations period under the Oregon Act could be measured from discovery of “defendants’ continuing fraud,” because the “plain language of section 650.020[6] does not mention tolling nor condition the limitations period on discovery of the…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 650.020(l)(b) — 1 case
Campbell v. Southland Corp., 871 P.2d 487 (Or. Ct. App. 1994). “Plaintiffs then filed this action, alleging separate claims for common law misrepresentation, violation of the Oregon Franchise Law, ORS 650.020(1), breach of contract and wrongful termination.”
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.