Exxon Mobil Franchise Agreement

In June 2009 – after the council passed the new law and the mayor signed the new law, but before the law went into effect – Exxon sold the gas station and transferred the franchise agreement to Anacostia Realty, a gas dealer. In this case, however, Metroil admits that it still uses the Exxon brand, gets Exxon fuel, and uses the gas station in question. As a result, Metroil did not rely on sufficient facts to prove that the franchise relationship had not been renewed, let alone that there had been an illegal non-renewal. For this reason, Metroil`s action under the Petroleum Act was duly dismissed. However, in 2004, ExxonMobil exited the „Direct Service” market and switched to a „Distributor Served” model. It planned to terminate its direct relationship with the dealers, including its franchise agreement with the applicant. It proposed to allow its directly served dealers, including the applicant, to purchase the leased service stations and continue to sell branded gasoline under a new PMPA agreement with one of the three authorized dealers. The plaintiff purchased the leased station and entered into a „sales agreement” with ExxonMobil in 2004 and entered into a new PMPA fuel concession franchise agreement with ExxonMobil`s authorized distributor, McPherson Oil Company. The PMPA agreement between ExxonMobil and the applicant`s dealer included ExxonMobil`s express reservation to approve or not to approve the branding of a new station at locations of its choice. d) This emergency will confirm the Commission`s intention to ensure that a franchisee has the right of first refusal before a franchisor`s share in a building leased from 1. April 2009 is sold, transferred or assigned pursuant to the Retail Service Stations (Amendment) Act, 2009.

First, Metroil alleges that the sale of Exxon to Anacostia violated a D.C. Act, the Retail Gas Stations (Amendment) Act, 2009. This law granted franchisees of existing gas stations (such as Metroil) a right of first refusal before selling a station. However, the law only came into effect after Exxon was sold to Anacostia, so the law did not grant Metroil a right of first refusal in this case. Metroil later sued Exxon and Anacostia, stating that: (1) Exxon v. D.C. Retail Service Station Amendment Act when Exxon sold the gas station to Anacostia without granting Metroil a right of first refusal, (2) Anacostia violated the Federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act when Anacostia failed to pursue the franchise relationship with Metroil, and (3) Exxon violated D.C Code by assigning the franchise agreement to Anacostia. Third, Metroil alleges that Exxon violated the D.C Code prohibition from engaging in contractual assignments that significantly increase the burden or risk to the non-.C signing party. Metroil argues that Exxon`s assignment of the franchise agreement to Anacostia significantly increased the burdens and risks imposed on Metroil.

But all the burdens and risks claimed by Metroil were eligible in the original contract and are not due to the assignment. Second, Metroil alleges a violation of the Federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act, which, as is relevant in this case, requires gas station franchisors to continue their franchise relationships, except in certain circumstances. According to Metroil, following the sale of Exxon to Anacostia, Anacostia illegally failed to continue the already existing franchise relationship. However, it is not disputed that Metroil still operates the gas station, buys and sells Exxon fuel and uses the Exxon brand. According to the law, these three facts mean that the franchise relationship has continued. Since the sale of Exxon to Anacostia in June 2009, Metroil and Anacostia have not signed a new franchise agreement. But Anacostia still allows Metroil to operate the gas station, still supplies Exxon fuel to Metroil, and still allows Metroil to use Exxon brands. However, according to Metroil, Anacostia charged higher prices for fuel and demanded a new means of payment.

Metroil then argues that Anacostia did not renew the franchise relationship in violation of the Federal Petroleum Marketing Practices Act.5 In 2008, Exxon announced its intention to sell its U.S. gas stations to gasoline dealers. Dealers often buy and sell multiple brands of gasoline. Sometimes they also operate gas stations. Many Exxon franchisees were alarmed by Exxon`s decision. They were concerned that distributors would raise rents and prices in order to force gas station franchisees to cease operations, which would allow distributors to resume operations of the stations. This case concerns a dispute over the operation of an Exxon gas station next to Watergate in Washington, D.C. Until 2009, Exxon owned the station and leased it to Metroil, a gas station franchisee that operated the station.

In 2009, Exxon sold the station to Anacostia, a gasoline dealership. After Exxon sold the station to Anacostia, Metroil continued to operate the station. But Metroil still sued Exxon and Anacostia, alleging three violations of the . Federal Cs and D. As part of Exxon`s sale of the station to Anacostia. The threshold petroleum act issue in this case is whether Anacostia did not extend the franchise relationship. As defined in the Petroleum Act, failure to renew is „a failure to re-establish, continue or extend the franchise relationship at the end of the term or expiry date specified in the relevant franchise.” 15 United States.C. . .