Court Opinion

ID: 9568705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:06:49.510382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:56:54.651006
License: Public Domain

HENRIOD, Justice
(concurring) :
I concur, but in observing that the main opinion discusses at some length Leach v. Board of Review, 123 Utah 423, 260 P.2d 744 (1953), I suggest that this máy bfr a ■ propitious time' to overrule that 16-year-: old case, which, so far as I can determine, has never been cited. This conclusion, on the simple ground that the written contract signed by the supplier and the so-called' “franchise dealer’’ on its face negated any element of control over the latter, who had no obligation whatever to punch a doorbell or even mention Rusco windows, to anyone, anytime, any place.