Thueson
Thueson v. U-Haul International, Inc.
Opinion
Opinion
Bruiniers, J.
Following trial by the court, judgment was entered against plaintiff and appellant David O. Thueson and in favor of defendants and respondents U-Haul Co. of California (doing business as U-Haul Co. of San Francisco) (U-Haul), on appellant’s claims that his dealership agreement was improperly terminated. His claims rested on the premise that the dealership agreement was a franchise, subject to the provisions of the California Franchise Investment Law (CFIL) (Corp. Code, § 31000 et seq.), and the California Franchise Relations Act (CFRA) (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 20000 et seq.).* Appellant contends that the trial court erred when it found that there was no franchise agreement within the meaning of the CFIL or the CFRA.
Appellant also appeals from an earlier grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant U-Haul International, Inc. (UHI), on the grounds that it was not a party to the contract in dispute.
We find no error in either ruling, and affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCED URAL HISTORY
A. The Dealership Agreement Between Appellant and U-Haul
Appellant and his wife operated a business in McKinleyville, California under the name Action Rental, selling and renting party and…