Opinion ID: 2373925
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: What is the appropriate standard of review?

Text: Having determined that New Jersey law governs this dispute, we now address the scope of our review on the issues relating to the existence of a franchise. Although the parties have not briefed the issue before us, we note that in CCC's brief to the United States District Court, CCC posed the question thus: Summary judgment for CCC is mandated if a reasonable juror could not find that ISI has a franchise subject to the Act. See New Jersey Am., Inc. v. Allied Corp., 875 F. 2d 58 (3d Cir.1989) (affirming summary judgment); George R. Darche Assocs. v. Beatrice Foods Co., 538 F. Supp. 429 (D.N.J. 1981) (granting summary judgment), aff'd, 676 F. 2d 685 (3d Cir.1982); see also Cassidy Podell Lynch, Inc. v. SnyderGeneral Corp., 944 F. 2d 1131, 1137 (3d Cir.1991) (declaring whether relationship constitutes a franchise is a mixed question of fact and law). Granted, there are cases that have held that the existence of a franchise is a question of law to be decided by a court. See Kania v. Airborne Freight Corp., 99 Wis. 2d 746, 300 N.W. 2d 63, 70 (1981) ([I]n the absence of a claim of ambiguity, which might require extrinsic evidence, the construction of a written contract is only a question of law for the court.). However, we conclude that that proposition applies only when the entire relationship between the parties may be deduced from their written arrangements. See Kinn v. Coast Catamaran Corp., 582 F. Supp. 682, 686 (E.D.Wis. 1984) (finding that written dealership agreement clearly and unambiguously conferred a non-exclusive distributorship); see also Nebraska Im-Pruv-All, Inc. v. Sass, 197 Neb. 261, 247 N.W. 2d 924, 926 (1976) (stating that in absence of sufficient factual issues, interpretation of contract to determine existence of franchise is matter of law). Here, the existence of the franchise is so closely related to the dispositive factual findings of place of business, license, and community of interest that we believe the appropriate standard is whether the evidence presented was sufficient to permit a factfinder to determine that the statutory requirements for the existence of a franchise were met. Although this case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment, it arises before the Court as if from a plenary trial because the parties agreed that no further evidence would be presented to the Chancery Division.