Identify the client Based on the facts of the contract between Pro Golf and First Flight Associates (FFA), which was rescinded prematurely, this paper seeks to advise FFA on the legal framework behind the termination. This paper analyzes the case and explores the problem that prompted the parties to seek court’s intervention whereas there were other avenues at disposal to solve the dispute. Additionally, the paper will explore possible actions that the FFA could undertake to preempt the recurrence of a similar problem in its future dealings. My recommendations will be based on my knowledge of the business law, which has been gained throughout the course. Provide background to problem The case presented in this paper centers on a controversial agreement between Pro Golf and FFA. FFA was accused of the failure to honor its contractual duties. Pro Golf is a multinational company with its headquarters in the United States (US), and it operates under the trademark FIRST FLIGHT. Following the company’s desire to penetrate the global market, it appointed Robert G. Wynn as the sales representative in the Far East countries. Consequently, Wynn formed a company to execute the roles of a sales representative in Japan. The company, which was registered by the name First Flight Associates (FFA), marketed Pro Golf’s products under the trademark, FIRST FLIGHT. This aspect indicates that it was licensed to act as a sales representative of the licensor. The relationship between the two parties was informal since no formal contract was entered between the companies when the license was issued. On the contrary, the two parties formed an implied form of contract substantiated through the letters sent by each party. From the letters, FFA was to pay $2500 annually to Pro Golf as a consideration for the use of the trademark. However, to boost its marketing power, FFA sub-licensed other firms to use the licensor’s trademark among them being Teito Company. Under the new sub-license agreement, Teito was to pay an annual fee of $25,000 to FFA in exchange for the right to use the trademark to market the goods. The agreement between FFA and Teito Company caused disputes as the licensor sought full disclosure of the material facts on which the mentioned contract was founded. Following the failure by FFA to disclose the terms of the contract as required, Pro Golf notified the former of the intention to terminate the contract unconditionally due to failure to observe the contractual duties by the plaintiff. The problem The termination of the contract without an agreement being reached between the two parties as to how to execute the termination process formed the basis of the controversy. FFA allowed Teito Company to use Pro Golf’s trademark. Additionally, it did not disclose the terms of the engagement to the licensor even when required to do so. The reluctance by FFA to disclose the terms of engagement between it and Teito prompted Pro Golf to revoke the contract that it had made previously with FFA. The agreement was silent as to the reasons that could lead to termination. Therefore, the involved parties could not agree on the legality of such termination. In addition to the termination of the decree, Pro Golf declined to pay the commissions earned b