12 houers from now

this is the example of the case 

Dayan v. McDonald’s Corporation

466 N.E2d 958

FACTS: Raymond Dayan entered into a Master Licensing Agreement with McDonalds to open franchises in Paris, France. McDonalds sent three proposals for the franchise to Dayan and he chose the third proposal. The second proposal stated that McDonald’s would collect a lower 1% royalty fee with no services provided (unless paid for by Dayan) and Dayan would be responsible for real estate expenses. In the agreement, McDonalds specified that if the franchises were not held to their Quality, Safety and Cleanliness (QSC) standards the contract would be terminated. Dayan was found to be in violation of several QSC standards and McDonalds provide 6 months for immediate corrective action. McDonalds sued Dayan for violating these standards. Dayan responded with a suit in Illinois claiming that McDonalds did not act in good faith and use fair dealing in regards to their contract.

ISSUE: Did McDonalds act in good faith and use fair dealing in terminating its Master License Agreement with Dayan?

LAW: The Restatement (Second) of Contracts- Every contract imposes upon each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing in its performance and its enforcement.

ANALYSIS: Dayan argued that McDonald’s had a profit motive for terminating the contract. He also alleged that McDonald’s did not provide him with the operational services needed. The Court recognized that the original ruling in favor of McDonalds was just because of several factors. McDonald’s had good cause for the termination of the contract due to the discovery of violations of QSC standards through inspection and numerous testimony claiming unsanitary and disgusting conditions. The Court also recognized that McDonald’s did not need to provide services unless they were solicited and paid for as expressed in the contract.

CONSLUSION: Affirmed in favor of McDonald’s