Financial Support: In general, the franchisor does not provide direct or indirect financing for franchised Marriott hotels or guarantee financing, loans or other obligations. However, from time to time, in very limited circumstances and in its sole discretion, the franchisor may offer credit support to certain hotels in the form of a conditional guarantee on a portion of a loan provided by a third-party lender or provide a mezzanine loan. Territory granted: The franchise agreement allows franchisees to operate a hotel of a certain size in a specific location, selected by the franchisee and approved by the franchisor. Franchisees cannot be granted territory, but if it is, it is not exclusive. Franchisees may be exposed to competition with other franchisees, from outlets owned, leased, managed, authorized or franchised by the franchisor, or through other distribution channels or competing brands controlled by the franchisor. 26. Indeed, the only way in which the use of `Sheraton. Atlanta Airport” through the front door could give a false or misleading impression of potential guests associating these conditions with the hostel. Not only has Camp Creek presented no evidence of such a particular association, but the previous existence of the SHAA and the evidence of customer confusion between these franchisees contradict such a proposition. We also reject Camp Creek`s conceptually confusing proposal that the front door operated a “reverse transmission.”  Paragraph 1125(a) prohibits both “counterfeiting” where A sells its product under the name B and “reverse infringement”, where A sells B`s product under the name A.   See Waldman Pub.

Corp.c. Landoll, Inc., 43 F.3d 775, 780 (2d Cir.1994).   While Camp Creek`s testimony can be interpreted as showing that the Gateway sold its own rooms with the goodwill that the inn had accumulated in its name (sharing), there is no evidence to support the thesis that the Gateway sold the inn`s proceeds (reverse transmission).   See Debs, (Collection of Cases and Fact Models). Although the parties have brought much persuasion to our attention, they have not cited a case in Massachusetts that applies the Covenant in good faith to facts similar to those presented here.   The significant weight of authority in applying the implied commitment of good faith and fairness to cases of aggression converges on two fairly simple propositions: (1) If the parties adopt contractual language on the issue of competing franchises, the implied agreement will not nullify these conditions; 3 and (2) in the absence of such wording, the franchisor may not operate the franchisee`s business in bad faith.4 See Piantes v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 875 F.Supp. 929, 937-40 (D.Mass.1995) (Trend Description and CaseBook).

In this initial investment are a franchise application fee of: To begin with, it should be noted that simple competition for guests between hotels usually does not result in an enforceable claim offense.   See Hayes, 541 F.Supp. to 430 (description of the contest privilege).   Camp Creek would have no reason to complain, for example, if Marriott Corporation was building a hotel in the Atlanta airport area and competing with the hostel for guests.   Camp Creek argues that its franchise relationship with Sheraton requires a different outcome in this case, citing Hayes for the thesis that once two companies have agreed to enter into agreements together, they cannot unlawfully interfere with each other in the pursuit of that venture.   See also DeLong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 887 F.2d 1499, 1518-19 (11th Cir.1989) (Defense of privilege not available when interference is obtained by violating a confidential relationship).   In fact, the Hayes Court refused to invoke competition privilege in a case where one of the principals of a two-person partnership contacted his partner`s clients in order to discredit him and deprive him of their business.

  See Hayes, 541 F.Supp. to 430-31.   However, a franchise relationship is different from the partnership at issue in Hayes.   See Capital Ford Truck Sales, Inc.c. Ford Motor Co., 819 F.Supp. 1555, 1579 (N.D.Ga.1992) (Collection of cases that do not find a fiduciary relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee).   The agreements establishing the franchise relationship in this case make it very clear that Camp Creek is only one of many hotels in the Sheraton system and that Sheraton and Camp Creek do not enter into a partnership to do business in the Atlanta airport market.15 In addition, Camp Creek has not provided evidence of unique circumstances, which could support the argument that the parties intended to have a confidential or fiduciary relationship.16 See Allen v. . . .