Opinion ID: 3011059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Value of the Franchise to Cooper and Amana

Text: Cooper contends the District Court should have allowed it to present evidence of the franchise's value to the parties themselves, rather than its market value as measured by what third parties would be willing to pay for it. As noted, however, Westfield suggests the opposite. See 432 A.2d at 55 (Reasonable value would be that price upon which willing parties, buyer and seller, would agree for the sale of the franchisee's business as a going concern.). Moreover, our opinion in Cooper I refers, variously, to the current value of [the] business, the value of the business as a going concern, and the present market value of the lost business. 63 F.3d at 278. Such terms suggest an objective, not subjective, measure of the franchise's value. Accordingly, we believe the District Court correctly determined that the purported value of the franchise to Cooper and Amana themselves was not a proper measure of damages.