IBJNews

Steak n Shake loses appeal over franchisee’s pricing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A longtime Steak n Shake franchisee who sued the chain after it insisted on setting prices for menu items prevailed again Friday as the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed an Illinois federal court’s ruling in the franchisee’s favor.

The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois granted franchisee Stuller Inc. a preliminary injunction to stop implementation of a policy Steak n Shake announced in 2010 in which the company set prices for all menu items at its company-owned and franchise stores.

“The record contains sufficient evidence to find, as a threshold matter, that Stuller would suffer irreparable harm if it was forced to implement Steak n Shake’s pricing policy. Specifically, Stuller has presented evidence that the policy would be a significant change to its business model and that it would negatively affect its revenue, possibly even to a considerable extent,” 7th Circuit Judge Daniel Manion wrote for the unanimous panel.

Springfield, Ill.-based Stuller operate five Illinois Steak n Shake restaurants under franchise agreements with predecessors that date back to 1939, making it the oldest franchise in the country, according to Manion’s opinion. “In all that time, Stuller has had the ability to set menu prices,” he wrote.

Stuller sued when Steak n Shake said it would terminate the franchises if Stuller refused to adopt a new policy of uniform prices and promotions. It won the injunction while the court considers Stuller’s request for a declaratory judgment that it wasn’t required to comply with the policy. Stuller also accused Steak n Shake of breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act.  

In its appeal, Indianapolis-based Steak n Shake argued that the injunction should not have been granted, citing the court’s ruling in Second City Music, Inc. v. City of Chicago that stated “Injury caused by failure to secure a readily available license is self-inflicted, and self-inflicted wounds are not irreparable injury.”

“Steak n Shake misreads our decision in Second City,” Manion wrote.

“We acknowledge that Steak n Shake contests the validity and strength of the evidence presented by Stuller, but that argument goes to the ‘sliding scale analysis’ conducted by a court in deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, and not to Stuller’s threshold requirements. In addition, if Stuller implemented Steak n Shake’s policy and subsequently prevailed on the merits of its case, it would be difficult to reestablish its previous business model without a loss of goodwill and reputation. Because this is harm that cannot be ‘fully rectified by the final judgment after trial,’ it is irreparable,” the court ruled.

In its argument, Stuller said that in 2008, after the franchise adopted Steak n Shake's pricing policy, it lost $538,446 due to the new pricing, and higher fuel and food costs.

The franchisee increased prices 10 percent to make up for the shortfall, despite Steak n Shake’s recommendation not to do so, according to court documents.

Steak n Shake argued that the 48 franchised restaurants that adopted the policy in 2009 increased sales an average of 7 percent and customers an average of nearly 10 percent.

The company maintained that no franchise went out of business because of the policy.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Gave?
    S&S - the franchisor - didn't "give" anything. The franchisee pays for the marketing, signage, etc. as determined by the franchise agreement. This isn't a case of biting the hand that feeds.
  • S & S
    When biglari took over it was clear he thinks of himself over and above the great STEAK AND SHAKE chain. He needs to return the office to Indianapolis, NOT San Antonio texas who could care less about a great established INDIANA company. Let the franchisees operate as they always have: do it the S&S way!
  • Who Wins?
    This is more interesting than it appears, on the surface - what "power" does the franchise have, now? What can the franchisee do, on their own? Where is the line really drawn? Does S&S now have the "right" to withhold support and services from the franchisee, in retaliation? What will they do in this case? It could be an interesting precedent - did the courts make the "right decision"? It's easy to say "yes, they stood up for the little guy" - but, the franchisor gave them all the support, the setups, the signage, the advertising - hmmmm....

    Post a comment to this story

    COMMENTS POLICY
    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
     
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
     
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
     
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
     
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
     

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by
    ADVERTISEMENT

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
     
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

    ADVERTISEMENT