Logourl black
From our private database of 13,300+ case briefs...

We Care Hair Development, Inc. v. Engen

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit
180 F.3d 838 (1999)


Facts

Engen (defendant) owned and operated a franchise of We Care Hair Development, Inc. (We Care Hair) (plaintiff). The franchise agreement between We Care Hair and Engen provided that all disputes arising out of or relating to the franchise agreement could be submitted to arbitration before the commencement of legal action by either party. Additionally, in a separate agreement, Engen was required to sublease the property for the franchise from We Care Realty, an alter ego of We Care Hair. Engen was required under the sublease agreement to pay rent directly to an intermediary landlord. The landlord paid rent monies to We Care Hair. Arbitration was not required under the terms of the sublease. Rather, the sublease provided that the landlord could evict Engen for any breach of the sublease agreement. Additionally, the sublease stated that breaches of Engen’s franchise agreement with We Care Hair would be treated as breaches of the sublease agreement. The result of this agreement was that the landlord, without submitting a dispute to arbitration, could terminate the sublease and evict Engen for any breach of the sublease, including a breach of the franchise agreement. We Care Hair brought suit against Engen in federal district court. In response, Engen brought a state law claim against We Care Hair in state court alleging that the sublease agreement was unconscionable by permitting the landlord to bring eviction proceedings against Engen without submitting the eviction claim to arbitration. The federal district court ordered Engen to submit his state law claims to arbitration and enjoined Engen from proceeding in the state court lawsuit against We Care Hair. Engen appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Wood, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 136,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,300 briefs, keyed to 182 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.