Skip to content

Nevada Law Blog

Jay Young | Retired Las Vegas, Nevada Judge | Mediator | Arbitrator | Special Master

  • Home
  • Jay Young ADR Services
  • Nevada Mediation Resources
  • Nevada Arbitration Resources
  • Special Master Resources
  • Books by Jay Young
  • Nevada Litigation Resources
  • Nevada Causes of Action
  • Discovery Digest
  • Toggle search form

Author: Jay Young

Hon. Jay Young (Ret.) is a retired judicial officer with decades of experience presiding over complex civil litigation matters. Following a distinguished career on the bench, Judge Young now serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and court‑appointed special master, and discovery referee.  Judge Young brings a disciplined, impartial, and results‑oriented approach to dispute resolution. Judge Young is based in Nevada and accepts appointments statewide and nationally, subject to agreement or court order. He can be reached at 855.777.4557 or info@armadr.com Known for judicial temperament, analytical rigor, and practical problem‑solving, Judge Young assists litigants and counsel in resolving high‑stakes disputes efficiently and with integrity and employing best practices. He is recognized by U.S. News and World Report’s publication Best Lawyers as Arbitration Lawyer of the Year.

Due Diligence Checklist For Purchasing a Business

Posted on September 22, 2015 By Jay Young No Comments on Due Diligence Checklist For Purchasing a Business

So, you are thinking of buying a business?  What types of documentation or information should you be seeking from the seller before you agree on a price, sign documents, or pay any money?  This list will get you started: Seller entity information Documents necessary to discover the seller’s full financial Information Physical Assets of the…

Read More “Due Diligence Checklist For Purchasing a Business” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
Business Law, Corporate Governance, Franchise Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Elements for a Claim of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage or Contractual Relationship

Posted on September 19, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage or Contractual Relationship

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of intentional interference with prospective economic advantage (sometimes called intentional interference with prospective economic interest or prospective contractual relationship) are: A prospective contractual relationship between plaintiff and a third party; Defendant has knowledge of the prospective relationship; The intent to harm plaintiff by preventing the relationship; The absence…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage or Contractual Relationship” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
Business Law, Franchise Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Conversion

Posted on September 17, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Conversion

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of conversion are: A distinct and intentional act of dominion by one which is wrongfully exerted over the property of another; Act committed in denial of, or inconsistent with the rightful owner’s use and enjoyment of the property; Act committed in derogation, exclusion, or defiance of the owner’s…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Conversion” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Imposition of a Constructive Trust

Posted on September 10, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young 1 Comment on Elements for a Claim of Imposition of a Constructive Trust

In Nevada, one must prove the following in order for a court to impose a constructive trust:

  1. A confidential relationship between the parties;
  2. Retention of legal title by defendant against plaintiff would be inequitable under the circumstances; and
  3. Existence of trust is essential to the effectuation of justice.

Locken v. Locken, 98 Nev. 369, 650 P.2d 803 (1982).

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Imposition of a Constructive Trust” »

Jay Young | Retired Las Vegas, Nevada Judge | Mediator | Arbitrator | Special Master
Jay Young

Hon. Jay Young (Ret.) is a retired judicial officer with decades of experience presiding over complex civil litigation matters. Following a distinguished career on the bench, Judge Young now serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and court‑appointed special master, and discovery referee.  Judge Young brings a disciplined, impartial, and results‑oriented approach to dispute resolution. Judge Young is based in Nevada and accepts appointments statewide and nationally, subject to agreement or court order. He can be reached at 855.777.4557 or info@armadr.com

Known for judicial temperament, analytical rigor, and practical problem‑solving, Judge Young assists litigants and counsel in resolving high‑stakes disputes efficiently and with integrity and employing best practices. He is recognized by U.S. News and World Report’s publication Best Lawyers as Arbitration Lawyer of the Year.

nevadalawinfo.wordpress.com

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator

Elements for a Claim of False Imprisonment

Posted on September 9, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of False Imprisonment

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of false imprisonment are: Defendant acts with the intention to confine another person within boundaries that are fixed by the defendant; The act is against the will of the plaintiff in such a manner as to violate the plaintiff’s right to be free from restraint of movement; Defendant…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of False Imprisonment” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Fraud in the Inducement

Posted on September 3, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Fraud in the Inducement

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of fraud in the inducement of a contract are: False representation made by defendant; Defendant’s knowledge or belief that the representation was false (or knowledge that it had an insufficient basis for making the representation); Defendant’s intention to induce plaintiff to consent to formation of contract; Plaintiff’s justifiable…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Fraud in the Inducement” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
Business Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Constructive Discharge

Posted on September 3, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Constructive Discharge

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of constructive discharge (also known sometimes as tortious discharge) are: The employee’s resignation was induced by actions and working conditions by the employer which are so intolerable as to amount to firing despite a lack of termination. The actions of the employer violate public policy; Objectively difficult or…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Constructive Discharge” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
Business Law, Employment Law, Franchise Law, J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation)

Posted on September 2, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young 1 Comment on Elements for a Claim of Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation)

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of fraud or intentional misrepresentation are: Defendant makes a false representation or misrepresentation as to a past or existing fact; With knowledge or belief by defendant that representation is false or that defendant lacks sufficient basis of information to make the representation; Defendant intended to induce plaintiff to…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Fraud (Intentional Misrepresentation)” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Do You Have this Unfair and Illegal Provision in Your Franchise Agreement?

Posted on August 30, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Do You Have this Unfair and Illegal Provision in Your Franchise Agreement?

By Guest Blogger Matthew Kreutzer

Last night I reviewed a franchise agreement and found a surprising, and illegal, provision buried deep in the contract. If ever there was a compelling case for being careful when you are choosing legal counsel, I just found the provision that makes it.

But first, some background. My law practice involves representing both franchisors and prospective franchisees. For franchisors, I primarily draft franchise disclosure documents (“FDDs”) and franchise agreements; I assist my clients in obtaining franchise state registrations; and I assist them with day-to-day issues that arise in running their businesses. For prospective franchisees, I will review their proposed franchise agreements and FDDs and help them understand what they will be committing to do if they decide to buy the franchise. If the franchise company is willing to negotiate, I help prospective franchisees through that process.

I find that reviewing other companies’ FDDs and franchise agreements also helps me in my practice for franchisors; it’s always instructive to see what other industry leaders are doing. I have noticed that, in a small minority of systems, some franchisors go well beyond what is legally permitted to be included in the franchise agreement and include provisions that unquestionably violate the FTC Franchise Rule (the “Franchise Rule”) as well as various state franchise laws.

The Provision

If you’re on either side of the franchise relationship, you should know if your contract has a provision like this one. Pull out your franchise agreement now. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

You have it now? Good. Here’s the provision we’re looking for:

Release of Prior Claims. By executing this Franchise Agreement, Franchisee, and each successor of Franchisee under this Franchise Agreement forever releases and discharges Franchisor and its Affiliates, Its designees, franchise sales brokers, if any, or other agents, and their respective officers, directors. representatives, employees and agents, from any and all claims of any kind, in law or In equity, which may exist as of the date of this Franchise Agreement relating to, in connection with, or arising under this Franchise Agreement or any other agreement between the parties, or relating In any other way to the conduct of Franchisor, its Affiliates, its designees, franchise sales brokers, if any, or other agents, and their respective officers, directors, representatives, employees and agents prior to the date of this Franchise Agreement, including any and all claims, whether presently known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, arising under the franchise, business opportunity, securities, antitrust or other laws of the United States, any stale or locality.

In plain English: “you, the franchisee acknowledge that we, the franchisor, may have lied to you and might be lying to you right now. Our entire FDD might be one of the greatest works of fiction since Moby Dick. You agree, however, that you waive all your legal rights to take action against us based on those lies, even if you have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars of your hard-earned money in this phony business.” Wow.

Do you have that one in your franchise agreement? You might have to do a bit of hunting for it. You would think something like that would be on the first page, bolded, in caps, with a box around it and perhaps accompanied by a self-lighting sparkler that draws your attention directly to the provision when you open the contract. But no, in the case of the contract in which I found this provision, it was buried on page 36 of a 39-page franchise agreement, with no particular emphasis placed upon it.

I will never include a provision like this in a franchise agreement I draft, nor will I ever recommend that a prospective franchise buyer sign a contract when it includes this provision. Why? It’s not only unfair, but it’s also illegal under the Franchise Rule and under various state franchise laws.

The Problem with Having the Provision

Now, I highly doubt that in most situations, the franchisor even knows this provision is in its franchise agreement. Most start-up franchise companies trust their franchise counsel to draft the agreement and don’t necessarily carefully consider each provision in the contract. This sort of provision is typically created by counsel, who is seeking to protect his or her client. An admirable goal, to be sure.

The problem is that this provision is impossible to justify to a prospective franchisee that notices it and understands its implications. If you’re a franchisor, imagine trying to explain that to a potential buyer: “we’re not lying to you.  But you have to agree as a condition of buying this franchise that we might be and that you won’t ever do anything about it if we are.”

A franchisor may be able to slip this one by a franchisee unnoticed, but a franchisee that notices and understands this provision is always going to have a problem with it. A franchisee that has experienced franchise legal counsel review the agreement for them will certainly flag the term and warn the franchisee against agreeing to it. That could cost you a sale.

To make matters worse for the franchisor, the types of franchisees that actually read the agreement before signing it and have legal counsel review it for them are exactly the type of franchisees the franchisor wants: franchisees that take their commitments seriously and are willing to put their time, effort, and money into understanding commitments before they make them.

Now, I have my doubts that this type of provision will be enforceable in any event because, as I said, including a provision like this one is an explicit violation of the Franchise Rule, which “prohibits franchise sellers from disclaiming or requiring a prospective franchisee to waive reliance on any representation made in the disclosure document or in its exhibits or amendments.” This provision does exactly that – and, as a result, the franchisor that included it in its agreement is in violation of the Franchise Rule (and various state laws) just for having the term in the contract.

Violating the Franchise Rule and state franchise laws leaves the franchisor exposed to lawsuits by franchisees that may have a state law “unfair trade practices” cause of action against the franchisor because of it. When those legal claims exist, a franchisor could face claims for damages or rescission. Moreover, state franchise administrators could refuse to register the franchise offering with a provision like this one (if they notice it) or worse, later take administrative action against the franchisor based on its violation of franchise law.

The better practice for franchisors that want to protect themselves, but do so within the bounds of the law, is to use exculpatory provisions and “compliance questionnaires” as part of the agreement signing process. A well-drafted exculpatory provision will provide a measure of protection to franchisors for unauthorized statements made by a renegade sales person, but will not seek to disclaim statements made by the franchisor in its FDD (and therefore is permissible under the Franchise Rule and many state laws).

The Lesson for Franchisors and Franchisees

If you are a franchisor, inclusion of a provision like this in your franchise agreement should make you question your legal counsel. Ask yourself: are you willing to risk losing a potential sale to a qualified, savvy, and ideal franchisee because you have a provision in your franchise agreement that probably isn’t enforceable anyway? Are franchisees that sign your contract without even reading or understanding it really the type of franchisees you want? And is “sneaking something past” your unwitting franchisees who don’t review every term of your contract really the way you want to do business? As I explain above, there are better (and legally-enforceable) ways to protect yourself in your franchise agreement, anyway.

If you are a prospective franchise buyer, this situation highlights the importance of: (1) reading your franchise agreement, cover-to-cover; and (2) hiring legal counsel experienced in franchise law to review your contract before you sign it. Contrary to the opinion of some, franchise agreements aren’t all boilerplate, and not all franchise contracts are created equally. Don’t assume that your franchise agreement doesn’t contain something objectionable just because other franchisees signed it.

Read More “Do You Have this Unfair and Illegal Provision in Your Franchise Agreement?” »

Jay Young | Retired Las Vegas, Nevada Judge | Mediator | Arbitrator | Special Master
Jay Young

Hon. Jay Young (Ret.) is a retired judicial officer with decades of experience presiding over complex civil litigation matters. Following a distinguished career on the bench, Judge Young now serves as a mediator, arbitrator, and court‑appointed special master, and discovery referee.  Judge Young brings a disciplined, impartial, and results‑oriented approach to dispute resolution. Judge Young is based in Nevada and accepts appointments statewide and nationally, subject to agreement or court order. He can be reached at 855.777.4557 or info@armadr.com

Known for judicial temperament, analytical rigor, and practical problem‑solving, Judge Young assists litigants and counsel in resolving high‑stakes disputes efficiently and with integrity and employing best practices. He is recognized by U.S. News and World Report’s publication Best Lawyers as Arbitration Lawyer of the Year.

nevadalawinfo.wordpress.com

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
Franchise Law, J, Litigation

Elements for a Claim of Fraudulent Transfer

Posted on August 27, 2015January 9, 2024 By Jay Young No Comments on Elements for a Claim of Fraudulent Transfer

In Nevada, the elements for a claim of fraudulent transfer are: A transfer was made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; Without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation; The debtor was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a…

Read More “Elements for a Claim of Fraudulent Transfer” »

Share this:

  • Print (Opens in new window) Print
  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) LinkedIn
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…
J, Jay Young, Top Las Vegas, Nevada Mediator and Arbitrator, Litigation

Posts pagination

Previous 1 … 42 43 44 … 50 Next

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

  • Advanced Resolution Management

Visitor

3486711

Archives

  •  2026
    • Feb 2026
    • Jan 2026
  •  2025
    • Dec 2025
    • Nov 2025
    • Oct 2025
    • Sep 2025
    • Aug 2025
    • Jul 2025
    • Feb 2025
    • Jan 2025
  •  2024
    • Dec 2024
    • Nov 2024
    • Oct 2024
    • Aug 2024
    • May 2024
    • Mar 2024
    • Feb 2024
    • Jan 2024
  •  2021
    • Mar 2021
    • Feb 2021
    • Jan 2021
  •  2020
    • Dec 2020
    • Nov 2020
    • Oct 2020
    • Sep 2020
    • Aug 2020
    • Jul 2020
    • Jun 2020
    • May 2020
    • Apr 2020
    • Mar 2020
    • Jan 2020
  •  2019
    • Dec 2019
    • Nov 2019
    • Oct 2019
    • Sep 2019
    • Aug 2019
    • Apr 2019
    • Mar 2019
    • Feb 2019
    • Jan 2019
  •  2018
    • Dec 2018
    • Nov 2018
    • Oct 2018
    • Sep 2018
    • Aug 2018
    • Jul 2018
    • Mar 2018
    • Feb 2018
  •  2017
    • Nov 2017
    • Oct 2017
    • Sep 2017
    • Aug 2017
    • Jul 2017
    • Jun 2017
    • May 2017
    • Apr 2017
    • Mar 2017
    • Feb 2017
  •  2016
    • Sep 2016
    • Aug 2016
    • Jul 2016
    • Jun 2016
    • May 2016
    • Apr 2016
    • Mar 2016
    • Feb 2016
    • Jan 2016
  •  2015
    • Dec 2015
    • Nov 2015
    • Oct 2015
    • Sep 2015
    • Aug 2015
    • Jul 2015
    • Jun 2015
    • May 2015
    • Apr 2015
    • Mar 2015
    • Feb 2015
  •  2013
    • Jul 2013
Disclaimer
Contact Us

Copyright © 2026 Nevada Law Blog.

Powered by PressBook WordPress theme

Nevada Law Blog
Privacy Policy / Proudly powered by WordPress Theme: PressBook.
Loading Comments...
%d