Case Citation
Legal Case Name

ZAPATHA v. DAIRY MART, INC. Case Brief

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Hampden1980
381 Mass. 284 408 N.E.2d 1370

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A franchisor terminated a franchisee’s contract without cause, as explicitly permitted by the agreement. The court held the termination was lawful, finding the termination clause was not unconscionable and its exercise did not violate the duty of good faith.

Legal Significance: A clear termination-at-will clause in a commercial franchise agreement is not per se unconscionable or a breach of good faith, especially when the franchisee is a sophisticated party who understood the terms and was protected from significant investment loss.

ZAPATHA v. DAIRY MART, INC. Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The plaintiffs, the Zapathas, entered into a franchise agreement with the defendant, Dairy Mart, Inc., to operate a convenience store. Mr. Zapatha was a high school graduate with some college-level business courses and significant managerial experience. The franchise agreement contained a clause allowing either party to terminate without cause upon ninety days’ written notice. A Dairy Mart representative specifically pointed out and explained this provision to Mr. Zapatha, who acknowledged he understood it but chose not to consult an attorney. The agreement also stipulated that upon a no-cause termination by Dairy Mart, it would repurchase the Zapathas’ saleable inventory, mitigating their financial risk. Several years into the franchise, Dairy Mart presented the Zapathas with a new, less favorable agreement. When the Zapathas refused to sign it, Dairy Mart invoked the termination clause from the original contract, providing the required ninety days’ notice and openly stating its willingness to discuss a new agreement. The Zapathas sued, and the trial court found the termination clause unconscionable and the termination an act of bad faith.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: Is a contract provision in a franchise agreement that permits termination by either party without cause upon ninety days’ notice unenforceable for being unconscionable or for violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when exercised?

No. The termination clause was not unconscionable, and Dairy Mart’s exercise of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

Is a contract provision in a franchise agreement that permits termination by either party without cause upon ninety days’ notice unenforceable for being unconscionable or for violating the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when exercised?

Conclusion

This case establishes that courts will enforce clear termination-at-will provisions in commercial Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru

Legal Rule

A contract clause is not unconscionable unless it results in unfair surprise Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in cul

Legal Analysis

The court first determined that while the franchise agreement was not primarily Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in volupta

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • A franchise termination clause allowing for termination without cause is not
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupid

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Study hard, for the well is deep, and our brains are shallow.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+