State of California Department of Corporations
Brian R. Van Camp, Commissioner
In reply refer to: File No. _____
This letter is not an Interpretive Opinion for the reasons stated below.
Mr. Jesse W. Jack
Attorney at Law
Jack, Ruiz, Mallen & Sullivan
941 West Hedding Street
San Jose, CA 95126
Dear Mr. Jack:
The request for an interpretive opinion contained in your letter dated March 16, 1972, has been considered by the Commissioner. Your letter raises the question whether the Lease Agreement entered into between Larry and Elaine Rohde, dba Pacific Nobile Hash, and your client, Steven Ashby, constitutes a franchise within the definition of Section 31005 and subject to the provisions, including the registration requirement of Section 31110, of the Franchise Investment Law.
We understand that the Lease Agreement was entered into on or about July 23, 1971. For that reason, issuance of. an interpretive opinion would not be appropriate. As stated in Commissioner's Release No. 2-F, a copy of which is enclosed for your convenience, interpretive opinions are issued pursuant to Sections 31510 and 31511 of the Franchise Investment Law for the principal purpose of providing a procedure by which members of the public can protect themselves against liability for acts done or omitted in good faith in reliance upon the administrative determination made in the opinion. Such reliance is impossible after the transaction concerning which the opinion is requested, has occurred. Therefore, in that event, an interpretive opinion cannot be issued.
If you wish to explore the possibility that a violation of the requirements of the Franchise. Investment Law has occurred in connection with the Lease Agreement, it is suggested that you communicate for this purpose with Robert E. LaNoue, Assistant Commissioner, Division of Trading and Harkets, of this Department.
Dated: San Francisco, California
April 20, 1972
By order of
BRIAN R. VAN CAMP
Commissioner of Corporations
HANS A. MATTES
Office of Policy