T hi s or derand j udgm enti s notbi ndi ng pr ece dentexce ptundert he * doctr i nes of l aw of the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . I tm aybe ci t ed, h o w e v e r, fo r its p e rsu a siv e v a lu e c o n sis ten t w ith F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 2 .1 a n d 1 0 th C i r . R . 32. 1. 

## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### A u gu s t2,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT
D O L L A R R E N T A C A R S Y S T E M S , IN C ., an O kl ahoma corpor at i on,

P lain tiff-C o u n ter -D e fe n d a n tA ppel l ee, N o. 06- 5140 v. ( N . D . O kl ahoma) P. R . P. E N T E R PR I SE S, I N C . , a Fl or i da c orpo r a t i on ; PED RO R . P. D E M O RA ES, a n i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e n to f F l o r i d a ; RU BE NS P. T A D D E I , an i ndi vi dual r es i dentof F lo ri d a ; P .R .T . E N T E R P R IS E S , IN C ., a V ir g inia co rpo rati o n ; R O S A N A T A D D E I, an i ndi vi dual r es i dentof Fl or i da,

D efen dan t s- C ou nter -C l ai m ants A pp el l ants . ( D . C. N o. 01 - CV - 06 98 - P)

ORDE R AND J UDGM EN T *
B efor e B RI S CO E , S EY M OUR , and M UR P HY , C i rcui tJudg es.

A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l ythator al ar gum entw oul d notm at er i al l yas s i s tt he det erm i nat i on of-2-

th is a p p e a l. S e e F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a )(2 ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. I . I nt roduct i on P l a i n t i ff
- Ap p e l l e e Do l l a rRe n tA Ca rS y s t e ms ( “ Do l l a r ” ) , a n Ok l a h o ma corpor at i on, s ued D efe ndant
- A ppel l antPR P E nt erpr i s es , I nc. , a Fl or i da corpor at i on, and PR T E nt erpr i s es , I nc. , a V i r gi ni a corpor at i on, ( “Fr anchi s ees ”) fo r d e c lar a to ryju d g m e n t th a t D o llar w a s e n tit led to ter m in a te its r e latio n sh ip w ith Fr anchi s ees and br eac h of contr actar i s i ng fr om Fr anchi s ees ’ fai l ur e t o m ake p a ym e n ts a s re q u ir e d u n d e r i ts L ic e n s e a n d M a s te r L e a s e A g re e m e n ts w ith D o lla r. Do l l a ra l s o s u e d F r a n c h i s e e s ’ p e r s o n a l g u a r a n t o r s a n d o wn e r s , P e d r o R. P . De M or aes , R ubens P. T addei , and R os ana Taddei forbr eac h of thei rG uar ant ee A gr eement s w i th D ol l ar . Fr anchi s ees count er cl ai m ed, as s er t i ng D ol l arhad
w r ongful l yt erm i nat ed i t s contr actual r el at i ons hi p w i th Fr anchi s ees . T he di s tr i ct court , pur s uantt o i t s di ver s i tyj ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . § 1332( a) ( 1) , hel d a bench tr i al , found i n favorof D ol l aron al l of D ol l ar ’ s cl ai m s , and aw ar ded D ol l ar damages , l i t i gat i on cos t s and expe ns es , and att or ney ’ s fee s . B eca us e i tconcl uded D ol l arw as j us t i fi ed i n t erm i nat i ng i t s contr act s w i th Fr anchi s ees , t he di s tr i ct cou rtfou nd againstF ranchi sees on F ranchi sees’ cou nter cl ai m s. F ran ch isees, alon g w ith M o rae s an d the T ad d eis, ap p ea l th e d istri ct co u rt ’s rul i ng. Fr anchi s ees as s ertthe di s tr i ctcourterr oneous l yadmi t t ed t es t i m onyfr om D ol l ar ’ s expertw i tnes s as t o Fr anchi s ees ’ fi nanci al condi t i on and the l i kel i hood-3-

o f F ran ch isees’ f

u ture p rofit ab il ity . F ran ch isees a lso a ll eg e the d istri ct co u rt e rro n e o u slyc o n c lu d e d D o llar w a s ju stified in ter m in a tin g its re latio n sh ip w ith F ra n c h ise e s a n d sh o u ld h a v e a w a rd e d c o n se q u e n tial d a m a g e s o r lo st p ro fits to F ranchi sees for D oll ar’ s w rongf ul t erm i nati on of the con tract s. T hi s courtexer ci s es j ur i s di ct i on pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 1291. A ft er r evi ew i ng the r ecor d and the di s tr i ctcour t ’ s ext ens i ve fi ndi ngs of fa ctand c o n c lu sio n s o f

law , this c o u rt affi rm s the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s evi dent i aryrul i ng and l e g a l c o n c l u s i o n s r e g a r d i n g F r a n c h i s e e s ’ l i a b i l i ty. I I . Backg r ound P R P E n te rp ri s e s is a c lo s e ly h e ld c o rp o ra tio n o w n e d e n tir e ly b yM o ra e s . PR T E nt erpr i s es i s a cl os el yhel d corpor at i on ow ned byM or aes and R ubens T addei . B oth corpor at i ons w er e enga ged i n the r ent al carbus i nes s under f ra n c h is e a g re e m e n ts w ith D o lla r. PR P oper at ed D ol l arfr anchi s es i n Pens acol a, Fl or i da, fr om 1991 t o 2001 and i n M obi l e and Bi r m i ngham, A l abama, fr om 1999 t o 2001. PR T oper at ed D ol l arfr anchi s es i n N or fol k, V i r gi ni a, fr om 1992 t o 2001 and i n R i chmond, V i r gi ni a, fr om 1999 t o 2001. I n eac h oper at i onal l ocat i on, Fr anchi s ees had L i cens e A gr eement s w i th D ol l art hatobl i gat ed them t o payl i cens e fe es , s y s t em fe e s, D o llar r e se rv a tio n sy ste m c h a rg e s, a n d re v e n u e m a n a g e m e n t ch a rg e s, a n d to r ei m bur s e D ol l arfors uppl i es and mat er i al s , t r avel agentcomm i s s i ons , fr equent flier p a ym e n ts, c u sto m e r a dju stm e n ts, g o o d w ill c e rtific a tes , an d in ter c ityB eca us e the Li cens e A gr eement s w er e ent er ed i nt o on di ffe r entdat es , t he 1 ter m s o f th e a g re e m e n ts v a ryslig h tly . T h e P e n sa c o la a n d N o rfo lk a g re e m e n ts con t ai n the sam e t erm s, ho w ever, as do the R i chm on d an d A l abam a agreem ents . -4- paym ent s . Fr anchi s ees al s o had M as t erL eas e A gr eement s i n eac h l ocat i on,

1
w hi ch al l ow ed them t o l eas e ca r s fr om D ol l ar ’ s fl eetof vehi cl es and obl i gat ed them t o payfl eet - l eas i ng fee s , as w el l as fi nance char ges and l at e cha r ges on any u n p a id flee t-lea sin g fe e s. M o ra e s p e rso n a llyg u a ra n tee d P R P E n terp rise s’ d e b ts in c o llate ra l G u a ra n tee A g re e m e n ts. M o ra e s a n d th e T a d d e is e a c h p e rso n a lly guar ant eed the debt s of PR T E nt erpr i s es t hr ough col l at er al G uar ant ee A gr eement s . A l l di s put es undert he agr eement s w er e t o be governed by Ok l a h o ma l a w. T h e c o n tra c ts b e tw e e n F ra n c h ise e s a n d D o llar p e rm itt e d D o llar to ter m in a te the co ntr act s und er var i ou s cond i t i on s. P ursuantt o each M ast er Lea se A gr eement , D ol l arw as perm i t t ed t o t erm i nat e the agr eementi m m edi at el yw i thout not i ce i n the “e ventof defaul t , ” w hi ch w as defi ned t o i ncl ude, among ot her thi ngs , ( 1) Fr anchi s ees ’ fai l ur e t o payi n ful l anyl eas e paym ent s on the dat e the paym ent s w er e due, ( 2) Fr anchi s ees ’ i ns ol vency , or( 3) Fr anchi s ees ’ br eac h of ei therthe M as t erL eas e A gr eementi t s el f ort he Li cens e A gr eement , or guar ant or s ’ br eac h of the G uar ant ee A gr eement . U pon the occ urr ence of a d e fa u lt, D o llar w a s p e rm itt e d to e n ter F ra n c h ise e s’ p ro p e rtyto re p o ss e ss its veh i cl es.-5-

U nderthe Pens acol a and N or fol k L i cens e A gr eement s , D ol l arhad the abi l i tyt o t erm i nat e the agr eement s for“good ca us e” upon the del i veryof not i ce to F ran ch isees fo r, am o n g o ther thin g s, (1) the fa il u re to c u re a d efau ltu n d er a coll at eral agreem ent, such as t he M ast er Lea se A greem ent, (2) F ranchi sees’ i ns ol vencyori nabi l i tyt o paythei rdebt s as the debt s came due, or( 3) Fr anchi s ees ’ fai l ur e t o compl yw i th the t erm s of the Li cens e A gr eementon thr ee orm or e occ as i ons w i thi n anytw el ve- m onth per i od, i ncl udi ng t he fa i l ur e t o pay lic e n s e fe e s , a d v e rt is in g a s s e s s m e n ts , re s e rv a tio n fe e s , o r o th e r fe e s . A ddi t i onal l y , aft ergi vi ng w r i t t en not i ce of m oni es due underthe Li cens e or M as t erL eas e A gr eement s orothercol l at er al agr eement s , D ol l arr et ai ned the r i ght to term inate the L icen se A g ree m en ts fo ll o w ing the e x p ir ati o n o f a three -da ycu re per i od. I n addi t i on t o i ncl udi ng pr ovi s i ons s ubs t ant i al l ys i m i l art o thos e r efe r ence d a b o v e re g a rd in g c o n tra c t term in a tio n fo llo w in g re p e a ted fa ilu re s to c o m p lyw ith the t erm s of the Li cens e A gr eement s and the fa i l ur e t o m ake pa ym ent s ow ed
w i thin three day s of recei ving no t i ce, the R i chm on d an d A l abam a L i cense A gr eement s pr ovi ded thatthe agr eement s coul d t erm i nat e aut om at i cal l yand
w ith o u t n o tice to F ra n c h ise e s if F ra n c h ise e s b e c a m e in so lv e n t o r w e re u n a b le to paytheirdeb t s as the d ebts becam e du e. T he R i chm on d an d A l abam a L i cense A gr eement s fur thers peci fi ed thatanydes cr i pt i on of defaul ti n anynot i ce D ol l ar pr ovi ded t o Fr anchi s ees di d notpr ecl ude D ol l arfr om art i cul at i ng addi t i onal or-6-

s uppl ement al bas es fordefa ul ti n anyact i on, hear i ng, ors ui tr el at i ng t o the agr eementort he agr eement ’ s t erm i nat i on. T he eve nt s pr eci pi t at i ng D ol l ar ’ s t erm i nat i on of the Li cens e and M as t er L eas e A gr eement s occurr ed i n Sept ember2001. I ti s undi s put ed thatFr anchi s ees fa iled to m a k e a flee t p a ym e n t o f $ 2 7 3 ,5 7 0 .2 5 it o w e d D o llar, w h ich w a s d u e to D ol l aron Sept ember17, 2001. B ySept ember18, 2001, the part i es s t i pul at ed that F ra n c h is e e s o w e d D o lla r a to ta l o f $ 5 6 9 ,0 0 0 , in c lu d in g th e m is s e d fle e t p a ym e n t. A s a r es ul tof Fr anchi s ees ’ unpai d debt s , D ol l arnot i fi ed Fr anchi s ees i n w r i t i ng on Sept ember18, 2001, thatthe M as t erL eas e A gr eement s w oul d t erm i nat e on Sept ember21 unl es s the mi s s ed fl eetpaym entof $273, 570. 25 w as pai d i n ful l by that ti m e. T h e n ex t day , h o w ev er, be fo re the ex p ir ati o n o f th e thre e-d aycu re per i od D ol l ari ni t i al l ygr ant ed t o Fr anchi s ees i n i t s Sept ember18 not i ce, D ol l ar not i fi ed Fr anchi s ees i n w r i t i ng t hati tw as i m m edi at el yt erm i nat i ng i t s M as t er L eas e A gr eement s and i t s L i cens e A gr eement s w i th Fr anchi s ees . Fol l ow i ng t erm i nat i on of the agr eement s , D ol l ardi s connec t ed Fr anchi s ees fr om i t s centr al
r es ervat i on cent er , began r epos s es s i ng i t s fl eetfr om Fr anchi s ees ’ l ocat i ons , and d re w o n a $ 4 2 2 ,0 0 0 le tte r o f c re d it h e ld a s s e c u ri ty fo r F ra n c h is e e s ’ o b lig a tio n s . O n S ep tem b er 2 1 , 2 0 0 1 , D o ll ar fil ed it s b rea ch o f c o n tr ac t and d ec laratory ju d g m e n t ac tio n in fe d e ra l d istric t co u rt. A ft era l engthypr e- tr i al per i od, the di s tr i ctcour thel d a benc h tr i al , w hi ch cul m i nat ed on O ct ober28, 2004. A ft err eques t i ng w r i t t en cl os i ng ar gum ent s and-7-

pos t - tr i al br i efi ng on i s s ues r el at ed t o damages , the di s tr i ctcour ti s s ued an ext ens i ve, for ty - ni ne page m emora ndum det ai l i ng i t s fi ndi ngs of fa ctand concl us i ons of l aw . R evi s i ng a mat hemat i cal err ori n i t s damage cal cul at i on, the c o u rt issu e d a n a m e n d e d ju d g m e n t. R el y i ng i n s i gni fi cantparton the t es t i m onyof M or aes and the V i ce Pr es i dentof D ol l ar ’ s L i cens ee D i vi s i on, M ar i o N ar gi , the di s tr i ctcour tfound Fr anchi s ees began e ncount er i ng fi nanci al di ffi cul t i es bythe fi r s tquar t erof 2001 and had pr evi ous l ym i s s ed paym ent s t o D ol l ardur i ng the s pr i ng and s um m erof 2 0 0 1 . B yS e p tem b e r 2 0 0 1 , fr a n c h ise e s w e re a lso sig n ifica n tlyb e h in d in th e ir paym ent s t o othercr edi t or s . M or aes admi t t ed the amountof pas t - due debt e x c e e d e d th e c a sh F ra n c h ise e s h a d o n h a n d . D o llar’ s e x p e rt tes tifie d to F ra n c h ise e s’ p o o r fin a n c ial c o n d iti o n , inc lu d in g th e p re c ip ito u s in c re a se in Fr anchi s ees ’ acc ount s pay abl e betw een J anuary2001 and Sept ember2001. B as ed on the expe r t ’ s t es t i m ony , the courtfound that , bySept ember19, 2001, Fr anchi s ees w er e i ns ol vent , di d nothave the abi l i tyt o cont i nue as a goi ng conce rn, and w er e notabl e t o paythei rdebt s as the debt s beca m e due. T he courtfur therfound that , i n a s er i es of conve r s at i ons betw een Fr anchi s ees and D ol l arfr om Sept ember17 thr ough Sept ember19, D ol l arw as in fo rm e d a b o u t F ra n c h ise e s’ d ire fin a n c ial c o n d iti o n . In m u lti p le te lep h o n e c a lls betw een M or aes and D ol l arcol l ect or s on Sept ember17, M or aes i ndi cat ed F ra n c h is e e s w e re u n a b le to p a yp a s t d u e a m o u n ts o r m a k e th e irfle e t p a ym e n t.-8-

O n Sept ember18, Fr anchi s ees ’ bookkeepe rt ol d a D ol l arcol l ect orthatM or aes had l ai d off Fr anchi s ees ’ ent i r e ac count i ng s t aff the pr evi ous day . O n Sept ember 19, M or aes s poke w i th D ol l ar ’ s D i r ect orof C r edi tand C ol l ect i ons , as w el l as w ith N a rg i, an d in d ica ted F ra n c h ise e s w o u ld b e u n a b le to p a yth e ir d e b t in f u ll
w i tho ut r ecei pt of a ban k loan or D oll ar’ s w i l l i ng ness t o b uyF ranchi sees’ fr anchi s e l ocat i ons . A l s o on Sept ember19, M r . T addei cal l ed N ar gi and i ndi cat ed F r a n c h i s e e s w o u l d p r o b a b l y h a v e t o fi l e fo rb a n k ru p t c y. A pp l y i ng these findi ng s t o the l ang uag e of the L i cense an d M ast er Lea se A g ree m en ts, the c o u rtco n clud ed there w ere m u lt iple g rou n d s fo r D o ll ar’s t erm i nat i on of Fr anchi s ees ’ contr act s . T he courtdet erm i ned Fr anchi s ees defa ul t ed on thei rpaym entobl i gat i ons underthe M as t erL eas e and gua r ant or d e fa u lted o n th e G u a ra n tee A g re e m e n ts, p e rm itt in g D o llar to im m e d iate ly t erm i nat e the M as t erL eas e A gr eement s . T he courtfur therconcl uded Fr anchi s ees ’ fai l ur e t o payamount s due underthe Li cens e A gr eement s fors ever al su c c e ss iv e m o n th s in 2 0 0 1 c o n stitu ted m a ter ial b re a c h o f th e L ice n se A g re e m e n ts a n d p ro v id e d “ g o o d c a u s e ” fo r D o lla r’ s te rm in a tio n u p o n n o tic e to F ra n c h is e e s . T he courtaddi t i onal l ydet erm i ned fr om the t es t i m onyand document aryevi dence th a t D o llar’ s k n o w led g e o f F ra n c h ise e s’ in so lv e n c ya n d in a b ili tyto p a yits d e b ts c o n stitu ted m a ter ial b re a c h a n d a m o u n ted to “ g o o d c a u se ” p e rm itt in g D o llar to ter m in a te th e P e n sa c o la a n d N o rfo lk L ice n se A g re e m e n ts u p o n n o tice a n d to a u to m a tic a lly te rm in a te th e R ic h m o n d a n d A la b a m a L ic e n s e A g re e m e n ts .-9-

Fi nal l y , the courti ndi cat ed Fr anchi s ees ’ fai l ur e t o cur e thei rnonpaym entof amount s due underthe M as t erL eas e A gr eement s r epr es ent ed a de faul tunder col l at er al agr eement s w i th D ol l ar , w hi ch pr ovi ded an a ddi t i onal gr ound for“good cause” term i nati on up on no t i ce t o F ranchi sees pursuantt o the L i cense A gr eement s . B as ed on thes e det erm i nat i ons , the courtconcl uded the not i ce of i m m edi at e t erm i nat i on t hatD ol l arpr ovi ded Fr anchi s ees on Sept ember19 w as val i d and thatD ol l arw as notobl i gat ed t o honori t s i ni t i al offe rof a thr ee- day cu re p eriod . T h e c o u rtfo u n d itsign ifi ca n t th at, af ter rece iving D o ll ar’s t erm i nati on no t i ces and a subseq uen tno t i ce reaffi rm i ng the term i nati on no t i ces, M o rae s n ev er o ffere d to m ak e p ay m en ts t o D o ll ar. B as ed on i t s concl us i on thatD ol l ar ’ s t erm i nat i on of the Li cens e and M as t er L ea se A g ree m en ts w ere p erm itted b ythe term s o f th e a g ree m en ts, the c o u rt r ej ect ed Fr anchi s ees ’ br eac h of contr actcount er cl ai m . C i t i ng w el l
- es t abl i s hed t enet s of O kl ahoma cont r actl aw , the courtr ej ect ed Fr anchi s ees ’ as s er t i on t hatt he offe rof a thr ee- daycur e w as bi ndi ng and coul d notbe r evoked. T he courtfur t her concl uded Fr anchi s ees ’ s t at ement s t o D ol l aron Sept ember17 thr ough Sept ember 19 r egar di ng Fr anchi s ees ’ i nabi l i tyt o payamount s due w as t ant amount t o a r epudi at i on of i t s contr act s w i th D ol l ar . Fi nal l y , the courtas s er t ed as an i ndepende ntgr ound forFr anchi s ees ’ i nabi l i tyt o r ecove rdamages the pr ovi s i ons i n the Li cens e and M as t erL eas e A gr eement s i n w hi ch Fr anchi s ees w ai ved any
r i ghtt o r ecove rl os tpr ofi t s orcons equent i al damages . A s t o the l i m i t at i on- on--10-

d a m a g e s p ro v isio n s in th e a g re e m e n ts, th e c o u rt c o n c lu d e d F ra n c h ise e s fa iled to demonstr at e thes e pr ovi s i ons w er e uncons ci onabl e. I I I . D i s cus s i on A . A dm i s s i on of

E x pert T es t i m ony R egardi ng F ranchi s ees ’ F i nanci al C ondi t i on O n appea l , as theydi d befor e the di s tr i ctcourt , Fr anchi s ees chal l enge the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on t o admi tt he t es t i m onyof St even W i l s ey , a ce r t i fi ed publ i c ac count antw i th t r ai ni ng i n bus i nes s appr ai s al and val uat i on. Fr anchi s ees co n testW il sey ’s ex p erti se in the e v alua ti o n o f re n tal ca r fran ch ises. In p arti cu lar, Fr anchi s ees ar gue W i l s eyfai l ed t o appl yt he veryacc ount i ng s t andar ds he t es t i fi ed w er e appl i cabl e t o t he eva l uat i on of Fr anchi s ees ’ m anage m entpl an, ca ll ing into q u esti o n h is t esti m o n yreg ard ing the likeliho o d o f F ran ch isees’ f u ture p r o fi t a b i l i ty. T hi s courtr evi ew s a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s det erm i nat i on t o admi tevi dence foran a b u s e o f d is c re tio n . Nat ’ lE nvt l
. Ser v. C o. v. R onan E ng’g C o. , 256 F. 3d 995, 1 0 0 1 (10 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ). “U n d er the ab u se o f d iscreti o n stan d ard , a tri al co u rt ’s d ec isi o n w il l no t be d istu rbe d u n less the a p p ell ate c o u rth as a d efinit e a n d firm convi ct i on t hatthe l ow ercourtm ade a cl earerr orof j udgm entorexce eded the bounds of perm i s s i bl e choi ce i n the ci r cumst ance s . ” B ought on v. C ot t erC or p. , 65 F. 3d 823, 832 ( 10th C i r . 1995) ( quot at i on om i t t ed) . T hi s court ’ s r evi ew of the
r ecor d i ndi cat es thatW i l s eydemonstr at ed appr opr i at e cr edent i al s t o perm i tt he-11-

di s tr i ctcourtt o qual i fyhi m as an expe r tw i tnes s pur s uantt o Feder al R ul es of E vi dence 702 and 703. A s to the m etho d o log yW il seyu sed in ev alua ti n g F ran ch isees’ f u ture pr os pect s forpr ofi t abi l i tyand W i l s ey ’ s exper i ence i n conduct i ng s uch ev alua ti o n s, w h en the d istri ct co u rtsit s as fac t- fin d er in a b en ch tr ial , the c o u rt h a s th e ri g h t to e v a lu a te fo r i ts e lf th e c re d ib ility o f

th e te s tif

y in g w itn e s s . See D uplan v. Har

per , 1 8 8 F . 3 d 1 1 9 5 , 1 2 0 2

– 0 3 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). T h e re co rd h ere reveal s ext ensi ve ex am i nati on regar ding W i l sey ’s asses sm ents of F ranchi sees’ fin an ce s an d d etail ed cro ss-ex am ination reg ard ing b o th the li m it s o f W il sey ’s exp eri ence a nd t he li m i t s of t he m et ho do l og yhe u sed i n an al y zi ng F ranchi sees’ bus i nes s . T hi s compre hens i ve exa m i nat i on of the w i tnes s ens ur ed the courtw as w el l aw ar e of the s tr engths and w eakne s s es of W i l s ey ’ s expert i s e w hen det erm i ni ng how t o w ei gh W i l s ey ’ s t es t i m ony . T hi s cour t , ther efor e, concl udes the admi s s i on of W i l s ey ’ s t es t i m onyand, m or e s peci fi cal l y , i t s cons i der at i on of W i l s ey ’ s t es t i m onyon t he l i kel i hood of Fr anchi s ees ’ futur e pr ofi t abi l i tyw as not an abus e of the di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s cr et i on. B . T er m ina ti o n o f L icen se a n d M a ster L ea se A g re em en ts F ra n c h ise e s’ b ro a d e r a rg u m e n t o n a p p e a l is th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in con cl ud i ng D oll ar w as j ust i fi ed in t erm i nati ng i t s L i cense an d M ast er Lea se A g ree m en ts w ith F ran ch isees. F ran ch isees c o n testthe d istri ct co u rt ’s det erm i nat i on thatFr anchi s ees r epudi at ed thei ragr eement s w i th D ol l arbym aki ng-12-

s t at ement s i ndi cat i ng thei ri m pendi ng i ns ol vency . Fr anchi s ees al s o chal l enge the d istri ct co u rt ’s co n clus ion that D o ll ar’s S ep tem b er 1 8 o ffer o f a three -da ycu re per i od w as r evoca bl e and non- bi ndi ng. N ow her e, how ever , do Fr anchi s ees cont es tthe di s tr i ctcourt ’ s under l y i ng fac tual fi ndi ngs r egar di ng t he fi nanci al condi t i on of thei rbus i nes s atthe t i m e D ol l art erm i nat ed the Li cens e and M as t er L e a se A g re e m e n ts o r th e c o u rt’s le g a l co n c lu sio n th a t F ra n c h ise e s w e re , in several w ay s, i n m at eri al breach o f bo th the M ast er Lea se and L i cense A greem ents atthe ti m e D oll ar t erm i nated the ag reem ents . W hen a l i t i gantappea l s fr om the j udgm enti n a benc h tr i al , the di s tr i ct co u rt ’s fa ctua l fi n d ing s are rev iew ed fo r clear e rror an d it s leg al co n clus ion s are r evi ew ed de novo . Holdem an v. D evi ne , 4 7 4 F .3 d 7 7 0 , 7 7 5 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ). T h is co u rt ’s rev iew o f th e re co rd p rov ides assu ran ce that the d istri ct co u rt ’s fi ndi ngs of fa ctw er e notcl ear l yerr oneous . A ddi t i onal l y , thi s cour t ’ s r evi ew of the co ntr actprovis i on s and O klahom a con tractl aw dem on strat es the co rr ect ness o f th e d istric t co u rt’s le g a l co n c lu sio n re g a rd in g D o llar’ s rig h t to ter m in a te its L ice n se a n d M a ste r L e a se A g re e m e n ts w ith F ra n c h ise e s, th e p ro p rie tyo f its concl us i on r egar di ng r epudi at i on, and the appr opr i at enes s of i t s det erm i nat i on thatthe thr ee- daycur e offer ed byD ol l arw as notr equi r ed underanyof the agr eement s and w as nots uppor t ed bythe cons i der at i on t hatw oul d have be en nece s s aryt o m ake the offerbi ndi ng. T hi s cour thas nothi ng t o add t o the di s tr i ct court ’ s thor ough m emora ndum , w hi ch exha us t i vel ydet ai l s i t s fac tual fi ndi ngs andB ec au se th is co u rtaffirm s the d istri ct co u rt ’s de term ination that D o ll ar’s 2 t erm i nat i on of the Li cens e and M as t erL eas e A gr eement s w as notw r ongful and that Franchis ees ar e no tenti t l ed to dam ages, w e need no treach F ranchi sees’ a rg u m e n t th a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in c o n c lu d in g th e ter m s o f th e a g re e m e n ts barr ed F ranchi sees’ cl ai m for con sequen t i al dam ages or l ostprofi t s. -13- pr ovi des ampl e s uppor tfori t s l egal concl us i ons . W e ther efor e affi r m the di s tr i ct c o u rt’s ju d g m e n t fo r su b sta n tially th e re a so n s a rticu late d b y th e d istric t c o u rt. 2 I V . C oncl usi on F o r th e re aso n s set fo rth ab o v e, th e a m en d ed jud g m en t of the d istri ct co u rt i s AF F I RM ED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT

M i chae l R . M urphy C i r cui tJ udge