Opinion
A22-0723 A22-0724
12-19-2023
Cambria Company, LLC v. M&M Creative Laminants, Inc. dba M&M Creative Laminates, Inc., Leland P. Schermer
ORDER ON PETITION FOR FURTHER REVIEW;
Issue Granted:
Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the District Court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Cambria Company, LLC (“Cambria”), on M&M's Minnesota Franchise Act (MFA) claim, finding that the MFA (a) could not be enforced by M&M because M&M is not physically located in Minnesota, and (b) does not apply because, although M&M paid Cambria substantial fees for fabrication services on every order, the Court held that M&M did not make “ any payment . . . for services,” within the definition of “franchise fee” under the MFA, since the Court utilized the UCC's “predominant purpose” test to the MFA, and determined the predominant purpose was to sell goods not services?
Granted