The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Matarazzo (P) claims that Friendly (D) violated federal antitrust laws in its business with P. P filed a class action suit. P alleges that contracts with store managers were not employment contracts but franchise agreements requiring store managers to purchase all of their requirements from D at fixed prices and to charge fixed prices as a condition of the use of D's trademark and trade name. The contracts were thus illegal tying agreements violating the Sherman and Clayton Acts. D contends the agreements were between employer and employee. P motioned for leave to file an amended complaint in order to allege facts with greater specificity and to add a pendant common law claim. The Count I amendment changes the nature of the complaint by changing the name 'franchisees' to 'store managers.' The Count II amendment alleges fraud, breach of contract, economic entrapment, misleading advertisements, false statements, secret rebates and unfair charges and unfair manipulation of net profits. The original complaint was filed 2-14-74. This motion was filed almost two years later.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.