{
  "id": 1627326,
  "name": "CHRIS LAMBERT Jr. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and EELENA HAYS, D/B/A/ SNELLING & SNELLING AGENCY v. SNELLING AND SNELLING, INC",
  "name_abbreviation": "Chris Lambert Jr. & Associates, Inc. v. Snelling & Snelling, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1973-02-12",
  "docket_number": "5-6165",
  "first_page": "1008",
  "last_page": "1010",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 1008"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "490 S.W.2d 116"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "239 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1730710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/239/0384-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3662,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.839,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.061400297855203144
    },
    "sha256": "e6aae114166a62214407434f35018613701d6ca2a946f0cc2af149f58a88e479",
    "simhash": "1:4999439ad5539bd5",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CHRIS LAMBERT Jr. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and EELENA HAYS, D/B/A/ SNELLING & SNELLING AGENCY v. SNELLING AND SNELLING, INC"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellee initiated this action to enjoin the appellants, an employment agency, from further use of appellee\u2019s trade name, \u201cSnelling and Snelling.\u201d By a written franchise agreement, the appellants had the exclusive right to use the appellee\u2019s trade name and be identified as a member of its national system. After appellants\u2019 use of this trade name for approximately 5 years, the appellee cancelled the franchise agreement asserting various violations. Appellants denied any violations of the agreement and by counter-claim sought damages for the wrongful cancellation of the agreement. The chancellor found that the appellants had breached the franchise agreement With appellee and, also, that the appellee had \u201clawfully terminated said license and franchise agreement according to the terms thereof.\u201d Accordingly, the court enjoined the appellants from using the trade name and dismissed appellants\u2019 counterclaim for damages. All pleadings were considered amended to conform to the proof. For reversal appellants contend that the chancellor's findings and order are clearly against the preponderance of the competent evidence. In our view the chancellor was correct.\nIt is undisputed that a written notice of cancellation of the agreements was given by appellee and received by the appellants. The notice was in accordance with the terms of the contract. Various violations were enumerated. Also, at the trial it was stated without objection that another reason for the cancellation was the \u201crefusal of the defendant [appellants] to show the books.\u201d Paragraph 4 (g) of the written agreement provides that \u201call records and books of account maintained by Licensee [appellants] with respect to Licensee\u2019s business shall be open to inspection by\u201d appellee. Appellee\u2019s Director of National Supervisors testified without contradiction that he personally requested appellants\u2019 manager, Mrs. Hays, to permit him \u201cto inspect her books.\u201d She replied that she didn\u2019t have them. \u201cHowever, she agreed the next morning she would pick me up and take me to the airport and bring them at that time. . . . The next morning she never showed, so I never got the material.\u201d He, also, testified that when he made a request at her office \u201cto inspect the books,\u201d she said, \u201c[T]hey are not available because of recent burglaries.\u201d He further testified that according to the building manager, \u201che knew of no recent burglaries at all.\u201d Mrs. Hays, however, testified that \u201cwe had missing things\u201d from the office and that \u201cevery office in that building had things missing.\u201d It appears that appellee\u2019s request for inspection of the books and records was never disputed. We deem it unnecessary to discuss appellee\u2019s other alleged violations of the agreement inasmuch as the recited conflicting and inconsistent evidence is sufficient to sustain the chancellor\u2019s findings.\nIt is well established that a chancellor\u2019s decree will not be reversed upon appeal unless it is demonstrated that his findings are against the preponderance of the evidence. Dennis v. Dennis, 239 Ark. 384, 389 S.W. 2d 631 (1965). The chancellor is in a better position to evaluate the witnesses, their interests, inconsistent and conflicting testimony since he hears and observes them.\nThe contract was properly cancelled and, therefore, appellants\u2019 claim for damages is no longt- an issue.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth C. Coffelt, for appellants.",
      "Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldridge ir Clark, by: Frederick S. Usery, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CHRIS LAMBERT Jr. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., and EELENA HAYS, D/B/A/ SNELLING & SNELLING AGENCY v. SNELLING AND SNELLING, INC\n5-6165\n490 S.W. 2d 116\nOpinion delivered February 12, 1973\nKenneth C. Coffelt, for appellants.\nSmith, Williams, Friday, Eldridge ir Clark, by: Frederick S. Usery, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1008-01",
  "first_page_order": 1058,
  "last_page_order": 1060
}