{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;} {\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f171\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f172\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;} {\f174\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f175\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f176\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f177\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);} {\f178\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f179\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255; \red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192; \red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\* \ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid9508377 \rsid13205366\rsid15683318\rsid16715545}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min5}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr8\min59}{\version3}{\edmins2} {\nofpages15}{\nofwords6174}{\nofchars35196}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}{\nofcharsws41288}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440\margb1170 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3 \jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot16715545 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16715545 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16715545 \chftnsepc \par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16715545 \chftnsep \par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid16715545 \chftnsepc \par }}\sectd \sbknone\linex0\headery1440\footery1170\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid16715545\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\tx-720\tx0\tx720\tx1440\tx2160\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 Mobile v. Lee}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 , Opinion\tab \tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs20\insrsid16715545 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid15683318 15 }}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 of 18 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid15683318 {\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1435\shptop1855\shpright10795\shpbottom1864\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypage\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn posrelv}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}} {\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypage\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1435\dpy1855\dpxsize9360\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{ \insrsid16715545 \par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid16715545 \par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}} {\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8 \pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 MOBIL OIL GUAM, INC., }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Plaintiff-Appellee, \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 v.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 YOUNG HA LEE,}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Defendant-Appellant.}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 OPINION}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA02-007}{\v\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA00\_011}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Supreme Court Case No.:CVA00\_011}{\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 \v\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\tc {\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tcl5Supreme Court Case No.\:CVA00\_011} }}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Superior Court Case No.: CV0460-00}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Cite as: 2004 Guam 9}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Vacating 2003 Guam 15 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Filed: June 10, 2004}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par \par Petition for Rehearing \par Submitted July 23, 2003 \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\ul\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellee:}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Thomas C. Moody, Esq. \par Klemm, Blair, Sterling & Johnson, P.C. \par 1008 Pacific News Building \par 238 Archbishop F.C. Flores Street \par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell \par }{\ul\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appearing for Defendant-Appellant:}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par John F. Tarantino, Esq. \par Law Office of John Tarantino\tab \par Suite 205, Sunny Plaza \par 125 Tun Jesus Crisostomo St. \par Tamuning, Guam 96911\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par BEFORE: F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice; FRANCES M. TYDINGCO-GATEWOOD, Associate Justice; RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 .}{\insrsid15683318 \par \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 CARBULLIDO, C.J.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 :}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [1]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab The court}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Opinion in this matter, 2003 Guam 15, was filed on July 9, 2003. Defendant-Appellant Young Ha Lee (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) filed a Petition for Rehearing on July 23, 2003.}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Plaintiff-Appellee Mobil Oil Guam, Inc. (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) filed a Petition for Rehearing on July 23, 2003.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Petition for Rehearing was denied by this court on November 19, 2003. After considering Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Answer to Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Petition for Rehearing, we hereby grant Mobil}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Petition, vacate our Opinion, 2003 Guam 15, and issue this Opinion. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [2]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab This case arises out of Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s alleged breach of a Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 PMPA}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) Motor Fuels Franchise Agreement (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Franchise Agreement}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Motion for Summary Judgment, the trial court held that Lee breached the Franchise Agreement and that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination of the Franchise Agreement did not violate the provisions of the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We affirm the decision of the trial court. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 I.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [3]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On September 1, 1998, Mobil and Lee executed a PMPA Franchise Agreement, wherein Lee was granted the right to use and occupy the Mangilao Mobil Station in connection with the sale and distribution of Mobil brand fuels for a period of eight years.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In return for the franchise rights, Lee provided Mobil with a $260,000 non-refundable conversion fee, a $30,000 security deposit, and an authorization to make direct debit draws on Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s First Hawaiian Bank (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 FHB}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) business banking account. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [4]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab For twelve months, Lee operated his service station and received monthly account statements from Mobil, which indicated that Mobil was being paid timely for its fuel sales.} {\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 However, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s credit posture changed after Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s wife triggered an investigation into their account when she inquired about the possibility that Mobil was double charging on some invoices.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The investigation led to the discovery that some of Mobil} {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s direct debit draws from Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s FHB account were returned for non-sufficient funds, which meant that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s monthly account statements did not reconcile with the parties}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 respective monthly bank statements. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [5]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab In a letter dated September 16, 1999, Serge Alves, a Mobil employee, informed Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s wife of the problem.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On October 4, 1999, Leo A. Manlapaz (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ), Mobil Fuels Manager, contacted Lee for a meeting, in which Lee was }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 provided a listing of all the returned direct debits amounting to $270,198.60}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 NSF List}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) and was informed that his account would be switched to cash on delivery basis.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 When Lee was asked to review and verify each item on the NSF List, Lee could not readily do so and }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 claimed that he had no prior knowledge of the returned direct debits and it was his wife who was handling all bank deposits.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 239 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On October 20, 1999, after several failed attempts to follow-up on the status of Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s review of the listing, Manlapaz called Lee, wherein }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [Lee] confirmed the accuracy of the NSF listing that was provided to him}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 and }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 promised to submit a written payment plan by October 21, 1999.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 240 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [6]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab Lee did not submit a payment plan by his self-imposed deadline of October 21, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Instead, on November 1, 1999, Lee personally delivered a letter to Manlapaz, which apologized for the overdue payments.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The letter also contained a proposed payment plan, wherein Lee would }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 pay at least $50,000 within the next 2 weeks.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 354 (Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.).}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On November 8, 1999, Mobil informed Lee that his proposed payment plan outlined in his}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 November 1, 1999 letter was }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 unacceptable as it [did] not meet Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s requirements on the timeliness of the full payment of [Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s] delinquent account.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 355 (Manlapaz}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Ltr.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil also warned Lee that the overdue payments }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 constitute[d] a serious violation of Article II(C) of [the] Franchise Agreement.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 355 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Ltr.). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [7]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On November 26, 1999, Mobil again reminded Lee of his continued violation of Article II(C) of the Franchise Agreement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil further notified Lee that in order to cure his default, he would have to make a $155,000.00 payment by the end of November 1999 and pay the remaining balance by December 31, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In response to Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s demand, on November 29, 1999, Lee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s attorney informed Mobil of the difficulty in making the $155,000 payment within four days.}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The attorney further expressed that, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mr. Lee, of course, will make the payments, and he does not dispute the debt at this time, but he does need some additional time in which to make this overdue payment.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 358 (Teker}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [8]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab In light of Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s request for additional time to make the payments, on December 1, 1999, Mobil informed Lee that the $155,000.00 payment deadline would be extended to December 9, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee did not meet the December 9 deadline.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On December 15, 1999, Mobil sent Lee a }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Final Warning}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 letter that again reminded Lee of his continued default.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Three days later, on December 18, 1999, Lee outlined another proposed payment plan. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [9]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On December 22, 1999, Mobil formally declined Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s latest proposed payment plan and counter-offered with another plan.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Under the plan, Lee was to sign a promissory note and agree to pay $50,000 per month with interest at 15% per annum.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The promissory note was to be secured by a mortgage on some of Lee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s property.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil noted that Lee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s acceptance of the plan would be evidenced by either first payment of the $50,000 by December 28, 1999 or the finalization of certain documents (such as appraisal papers) in preparation for the execution of the promissory note.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee failed to accept Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s payment plan, and on December 29, 1999, Mobil sent Lee a }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Notice of Termination}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 letter (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 December 29th Notice of Termination}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ), which notified Lee that the Franchise Agreement would be terminated on January 16, 2000.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [10]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On January 13, 2000, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s attorney informed Mobil that Lee was able to sell one of his properties and therefore, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [would] be able to deliver a check in the amount of Eighty Thousand Dollars}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 to Mobil, which was to be applied on the outstanding account.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 162 (Teker}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The letter also noted other properties that Lee was trying to sell and requested }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 that Mobil continue its practice of withholding}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 $9,000.00 to $10,000.00 monthly from Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 customers}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 credit card charges to apply on the outstanding indebtedness.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 162 (Teker}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [11]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab Despite Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s offer, on January 16, 2000, Mobil effectively terminated the Franchise Agreement and took control of the Mangilao Mobil Station.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On January 26, 2000, Mobil informed Lee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s attorney that Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s offer (expressed during counsels}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 telephone conversation on January 24, 2000) of a $100,000.00 check payment and an execution of a promissory note }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 for the balance due providing for $10,000.00 monthly payments until this account is paid in full}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 was rejected.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 167 (Johnson}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The letter also outlined Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s balance of $199,463.22 after Mobil subtracted the value of the station}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s inventory.}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [12]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On March 20, 2000, Mobil filed a Complaint in the Superior Court, alleging breach of contract and praying for Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s payment of $192,465.72.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On April 24, 2000, Lee filed an Answer and a Counterclaim alleging that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination and termination notice violated the provisions of the PMPA. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [13]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On July 20, 2000, Mobil sent Lee a }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Supplemental Notice of Termination.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant} {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 380 (Glath}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Although }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil maintain[ed] that the notice of termination was sufficient as a matter of law and that termination of you r franchise, Franchise Agreement and franchise relationship was legal and proper as January 16, 2000,}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the supplemental notice provided that if }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the Superior Court of G uam . . . determines that you were entitled to a longer notice period than was provided by Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29, 1999 notice of termination, this letter shall serve as a supplemental notice of termination.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 380 (Glath}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Ltr.). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [14]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On November 16, 2000, Mobil filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that Lee breached the contract, and, that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination of the Franchise Agreement and notice of termination did not violate the provisions of the PMPA. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [15]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab On December 4, 2001, the trial court issued a decision and order granting partial summary judgment and holding that Lee breached the Franchise Agreement and that Mobil complied with the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 51 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 However, the trial court found that there was a factual question regarding }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the amount due in excess of $164,922.51.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 47 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The trial court also dismissed Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s counter-claim }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 for attorney fees and exemplary damages.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 51 (Decision and Order).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee appealed. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 II.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [16]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 This court has jurisdiction over this appeal from a final judgment pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 3107 (as amended by P.L. No. 27-31, Oct. 31, 2003) , 3108(a) (1994).}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [17]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We review the trial court}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s grant of a summary judgment }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 de novo}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 .}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Amsden v. Yamon}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 1999 Guam 14, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 7 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Summary judgment is proper }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Guam R. Civ. P. 56(c); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Amsden}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 1999 Guam 14 at }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 7.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We similarly review contract construction }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 de novo.}{\i\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Brown v. Dillingham Const. Pacific Basin Ltd.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 2003 Guam 2 ,}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 6.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In interpreting a contract, the language governs if clear and explicit and not involving absurdity.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Ronquillo v. Korea Auto., Fire, & Marine Ins. Co.,}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2001 Guam 25, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 10 (citing Title 18 GCA }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 87104 (1992)).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Issues of statutory construction and jurisdiction are [also] reviewed }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 de novo}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 .}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Taijeron v. Kim}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 1999 Guam 16, }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 9 (citing }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 People v. Quichocho}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 1997 Guam 13, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 3). \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 III. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [18]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On appeal, Lee asserts that the trial court erred in granting Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s summary judgment motion on the issues of whether he breached the Franchise Agreement, and whether Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination of the Franchise Agreement and notice of the termination complied with the provisions of the PMPA. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 A.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Breach of the Franchise Agreement}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [19]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee avers three fac tual issues to support his contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract issue: (1) non-delivery of fuel, (2) amount of damages, and, (3) equitable estoppel.}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Non-Delivery of Fuel \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [20]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee first argues that }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 there are issues of material fact in dispute of whether good[s] for which Mobil is seeking payment were actually delivered.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Opening Brief, p. 11.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Although Lee correctly maintains that }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 evidence rais[ing] a disputed issue of material fact as to whether the goods . . . were actually delivered}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 forecloses summary judgment, }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mountain Bound, Inc. v. Alliant FoodService, Inc.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 530 S.E. 2d 272, 274 (Ga. Ct. App. 2000) (citation omitted), Lee has not proffered any material evidence that disputes Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s actual delivery of the fuels.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [21]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The gravamen of Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s allegation of non-delivery of fuel is that the documents accompanying Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s NSF List are computer-generated and contain no signatures to prove receipt of the deliveries.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We find Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s allegation unpersuasive.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The NSF List contains twelve entries, denoting the dates and the amounts of the returned direct debits from Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s account.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Accompanying the NSF List were sets of the following documents: (1) summary statements, which contain various invoice numbers to account for the direct debit entries that were allegedly returned for non-sufficient funds (Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, pp. 317, 323-324, 333, 336, 338, 340, 341, 344, 346, 348, 350, 352), and, (2) the duplicate sales invoices, which match the invoice numbers noted on the summary statement (Appellant}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, pp. 318-322, 325-332, 334, 337-339, 342-343, 345, 347, 349, 351, 353). }{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 While we agree with Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s observation that the summary statements were most likely computer-generated and printed around November as noted on the bottom of each summary statement, we disagree with Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s contention that the sales invoices are not valid duplicates of the original invoices.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Each of the sales invoices contains various order numbers and is dated from September 29, 1998 through June 3, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Unless Lee }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 submit[s] evidentiary facts or materials, by affidavit or otherwise}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 to challenge the validity of the duplicate sales invoices, Lee is unable to support his assertion that Mobil did not make actual delivery of the items it claims it did.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Tobron Office Furniture Corp. v. King World Prods., Inc.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 555 N.Y.S.2d 315, 316 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990) (citations omitted). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [22]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Moreover, we find especially significant the fact that Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s own }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 review[] [of] the documentation relative to the deliveries of fuel Mobil claims it delivered to the Mangilao Mobil gas station during the time at issue}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (in preparation for trial) resulted in the discovery of only three challenged invoices that are not dispositive in this appeal.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, pp. 62-64 (Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Consequently, because Lee has not produced evidence challenging the invoices that are part of the appeal, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s conclusory assertions that Mobil did not make the actual deliveries of fuel are insufficient to defeat summary judgment.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Hartz Mountain Corp. v. Allou Distribs., Inc.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 570 N.Y.S.2d 66, 67 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Tobron Office Furniture Corp.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 555 N.Y.S.2d at 316 (noting that }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [t]he failure to sufficiently demonstrate a material issue of fact requiring trial entitles plaintiff to an expedited determination of its claim for payment as to that merchandise actually delivered.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 ).}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Total Amount of Damages}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [23]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee next challenges the trial court}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s granting of summary judgment in light of his own expert}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s inability to determine the exact amount of damages.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s challenge is grounded upon the declaration of Roger Slater (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Slater}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ), a Certified Public Accountant, who was hired by Lee }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 to review documents and financial records pertaining to this case.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 169 (Slater}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Decl.).}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 With regard to the determination of the total outstanding amount owed, Slater made the following conclusion:}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In reviewing the monthly Stat ements of Account, and the invoices and other paperwork supplied by Mobil I am unable to determine for the proper balance of Mr. Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s account, because various documentation supporting numerous charges and credits to Mr. Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s account was not supplied.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 174 (Slater}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We find Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s solicitation of an expert, whose only real conclusion is that he was unable to determine the amount that Lee owes because of missing documents, especially unpersuasive s ince Lee was responsible for maintaining current, complete and accurate business records under the Franchise Agreement.}{\cs15\super\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid16715545 \chftn }{\insrsid16715545 }{\fs20\insrsid16715545 Pursuant to Article IV, paragraph C, section 10 of the Franchise Agreement, the Dealer is obligated to maintain current, complete and accurate business records, including all records referred to in Article VII, Paragraph A, and make such records available to Mobil for inspection during normal business hours at Mobil}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 s request. Mobil shall not disclose any such records or the contents thereof to any other party unless required by law to do so. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid16715545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\fs20\insrsid16715545 Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 14 (Franchise Agreement).}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 As we discussed above, notwithstanding Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s challenge to the three invoices, Lee has not averred material evidence disputing the rest of the invoices, and therefore, the total damages that Mobil claims that Lee owes.}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Tobron Office Furniture Corp.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 555 N.Y.S.2d at 316.}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 a.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Equitable Estoppel}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [24]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s last challenge with respect to the breach of contract issue is whether equitable estoppel is applicable in this case.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Equitable estoppel is defined as [t]he doctrine by which a person may be precluded by his act or conduct, or silence when it is his duty to speak, from asserting a right which he would otherwise have had.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Heskett v. Paulig}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 722 N.E.2d 142, 145-146 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 see Hodgkins v. New England Tel. Co.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 82 F.3d 1226, 1232 (1st Cir. 1996).}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The doctrine . . . is designed to prevent a miscarriage of justice}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 and }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 is to be }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 used cautiously}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 because it bars the normal assertion of rights otherwise present.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Prof}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 l Credit Servs. of New Orleans v. Skipper}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 543 So.2d 498, 499-500 (La. Ct. App. 1989) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Unlike promissory estoppel, equitable estoppel is available only as a }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 shield}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 or defense.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Estate of Hall v. HAPO Fed. Credit Union}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 869 P.2d 116, 118 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Guam has codified the doctrine of equitable estoppel in Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 5106(3), which provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Specification of Conclusive Presumptions.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Th e following presumptions, and no others, are deemed conclusive: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 . . . .}{\insrsid16715545 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (3)\tab Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he canno t, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission be permitted to falsify it; \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Title 6 GCA }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 5106(3) (1994).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee correctly notes that Guam}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s equitable estoppel doctrine was adopted from the California Civil Procedure law (CCP }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1962).}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Case law applying the doctrine has set forth four elements that must be proven in }{\insrsid15683318 an equitable estoppel analysis:}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (1)\tab the party to be estopped must be apprised of the facts; \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (2)\tab he must intend that his conduct will be acted upon, or act in such a manner that the party asserting the estoppel could reasonably believe that he intended his conduct to be acted upon; \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (3)\tab the party asserting the estoppel must be ignorant of the true state of the facts; and \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri0\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin0\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (4)\tab he must rely upon the conduct to his injury. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Crestline Mobile Homes Mfg. Co. v. Pac. Fin. Corp.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 356 P.2d 192, 195-196 (Cal. 1960); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mariano v. Guam Civil Service Comm}{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 n Bd.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , D.C. Civ. App. No. 810052A, 1983 WL 30227 * 1 (D. Guam App. Div. June 20, 1983); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Safway Steel Prods. v. Lefever}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 256 P.2d 32, 33 (Cal. Ct. App. 1953).}{ \cs15\super\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid16715545 2}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 Because Guam} {\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 s equitable estoppel statute was derived from California law, case law from that state is persuasive. }{ \i\fs20\insrsid16715545 See O}{\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 Mara v. Hechanova}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 , 2001 Guam 13, }{\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 8 n.1. District Court of Guam Appellate Division opinions are also persuasive. }{\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 People v. Quenga}{ \fs20\insrsid16715545 , 1997 Guam 6 , }{\fs20\insrsid16715545 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 13 n.4.}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Moreover, because the doctrine is an affirmative defense, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the party relying upon the doctrine of equitable estoppel,}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 which in this case is Lee, has the burden to }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 prove the existence of the four required elem ents essential to its application.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Crestline Mobile Homes}{ \insrsid15683318 , 356 P.2d at 195-96.}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [25]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In the case at bar, Lee argues that Mobil is equitably estopped from demanding payment on Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s outstanding balance because Mobil sent him monthly account statements, which provided that he was making timely statements, notwithstanding his receipt of FHB}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s monthly statements that apprised him that his direct debits were being returned.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We find that Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s equitable estoppel argument fails for two reasons.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 First, with regards to the first and second elements in an equitable estop pel analysis, the record does not establish that Mobil, an international conglomerate, was intentionally misleading one of its franchisees by sending him account statements that did not include information on the returned direct debits.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil explained that the error was caused by Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s internal accounting system, which }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 was not }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 directly linked}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 with information generated by its }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 direct debit system}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 and information provided by the statements furnished Mobil by the Bank of Guam relating to Mobil}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s account with the Bank of Guam.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 170 (Slater}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Decl.); }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 see }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 239 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Decl.) (expressing }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil acknowledges that it did not catch numerous returned items until the fall of 1999.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 However, once Mobil was made aware of the problem, it immediately notified Lee. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [26]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Second, assuming }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 arguendo}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 that Lee successfully dem onstrates that Mobil was aware of the returned direct debits and nonetheless sent Lee the inaccurate monthly account statements, Lee remains unable to prove all of the requisite elements in an equitable estoppel defense.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee must still establish that he was }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ignorant of the true state of the facts}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 and was therefore, an innocent party.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Scottsbluff Nat}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 l. Bank v. Blue J Feeds, Inc.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 54 N.W.2d 392, 401 (Neb. 1952) (quotations and citations omitted) (}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 An essential element [of equitable estoppel] is the entire good faith and innocence of the party imposed on.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 W.E. Richmond & Co. v. Sec. Nat}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 l. Bank}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 64 S.W.2d 863, 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1933).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Here, Lee does not deny receiving FHB}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s monthly statements, which afforded him knowledge of the true facts.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Scottsbluff Nat}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 l. Bank}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 54 N.W.2d at 402 (noting }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 no estoppel can arise where all the parties interested have equal knowledge of the facts, or where the party setting up the estoppel is chargeable with notice of the facts, or is equally negligent or at fault.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) (citations omitted and quotation marks omitted); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Yancey Bros. Co. v. Dehco, Inc.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 134 S.E.2d 828, 830 (Ga. Ct. App. 1964) (}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [A]n estoppel of this nature cannot arise where both parties have equal knowledge or means of obtaining knowledge of the facts alleged to constitute an estoppel.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 More importantly, Lee is also not arguing that proper examination of the monthly statements, conducted by a prudent businessman such as himself, was insufficient to provide him notice of the returned direct debits.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s monthly bank statements from FHB informed him that certain direct debits were being returned as marked by }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Return Item Non-Encl.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 At the bare minimum, Lee }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s disregard of the FHB statements illustrates that he did not }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 exercise . . . reasonable diligence to learn the truth.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Scottsbluff Nat}{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 l. Bank}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 54 N.W.2d at 402 (citations omitted).}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [27]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err with respect to the equitable estoppel defense issue. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 B.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Compliance with the PMPA}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [28]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee argues that the trial court erred in holding that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination of the Franchise Agreement and the notice of termination complied with the provisions of the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The PMPA, 15 U.S.C. }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2801 }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 et seq}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ., }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 was enacted by Congress in 1978 to establish }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 62 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 minimum Federal standards governing the termination and nonrenewal of franchise relationships for the sale of motor fuel by the franchiser or supplier of such fuel.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Clinkscales v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 831 F.2d 1565, 1566 (11th Cir. 1987) (quoting }{\scaps\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 S. Rep. No}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 . 95-731, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 1, }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 reprinted in}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1978 U.S.C. C.A.N. 873).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The Act reflects Congress}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 concern with }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 protecting franchisees, who generally have inferior bargaining power when dealing with franchisors, from unfair termination or nonrenewal of their franchises.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Carter v. Exxon Co., U.S.A.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 177 F.3d 197, 201 (3rd Cir. 1999) (citing }{ \scaps\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 S. Rep. No.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 95-731, at 17-19, (1978), }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 reprinted in}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 873, 875-77); }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 see}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Pro Sales, Inc. v. Texaco, U.S.A., }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 792 F.2d 1394, 1399 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing }{ \scaps\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 S.Rep. No}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 . 95-731, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 15, }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 reprinted in}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 873, 874).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In order to prevent unlawful terminations or non-renewal of franchise agreements, the PMPA }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 impos[es] two requirements on franchisors.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 First, the franchisor may terminate a franchise only for certain statutorily prescribed grounds.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Second, the franchisee must be given adequate notice of the franchisor}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s intent to terminate the franchise.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Sun Refining & Mktg. Co. v. Rago}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 741 F.2d 670, 672 (3rd Cir. 1984) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 see Hinkleman v. Shell Oil Co.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 962 F.2d 372, 376 (4th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [29]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee argues that summary judgment was inappropriate because material facts are in dispute on the issue of whether Mobil complied with the PMPA}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s provisions.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We disagree.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The PMPA delineates specific grounds for termination and non-renewal of a franchise agreement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In particular, Title 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2) provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 For purposes of this subsection, the following are grounds for termination or nonrenewal of a franchise relationship: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (A)\tab }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 A failure by the franchisee to comply with any provision of the franchis e, which provision is both reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , if the franchisor }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of such failure}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (i)\tab not more than 120 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if notification is given pursuant to section 2804(a) of this title; or \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (ii)\tab not more than 60 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonren ewal is given, if less than 90 days notification is given pursuant to section 2804(b)(1) of this title. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (B)\tab }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 A failure by the franchisee to exert good faith efforts to carry out the provisions of the franchise}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , if \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (i)\tab the franchisee was apprised by the fr anchisor in writing of such failure and was afforded a reasonable opportunity to exert good faith efforts to carry out such provisions; and \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (ii)\tab such failure thereafter continued within the period which began not more than 180 days before the date notific ation of termination or nonrenewal was given pursuant to section 2804 of this title. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li1440\ri1440\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin1440\lin1440\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (C)\tab The occurrence of an event which is relevant to the franchise relationship and as a result of which termination of the franchise or nonrenewal of the franchise relati onship is reasonable, if such event occurs during the period of the franchise is in effect and the franchisor first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of such occurrence}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 67 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi-720\li2160\ri2160\nowidctlpar\tx-1440\faauto\rin2160\lin2160\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (i)\tab not more than 120 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if notification is given pursuant to section 2804(a) of this title; or \par (ii)\tab not more than 60 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if less than 90 days notification is given pursuant to section 2804(b)(1) of this title. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A)-(C) (2002)(emphasis added).}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (30)}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29th Notice of T}{\insrsid15683318 ermination provided as follows:}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Your failure to comply with the above-mentioned provisions provides grounds for termination of our Franchise Agreement, franchise and franchise relationship under the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2802(b)(2)(A) and 2802(b)(2)(B), Mobil hereby terminates its Franchise Agreement, franchise and franchise relationship with you along with all related supplemental agreements, effective January 16, 2000. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, pp. 41-42 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Ltr.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The termination of the franchise agreement was expressly based on subsections (A) and (B) of section 2802(b)(2).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We turn to whether Mobil complied with each of these provisions.}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 1.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Section 2802(b)(2)(A)}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [31]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 To justify termination of a franchise agreement, section 2802(b)(2)(A) requires that the franchisee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s breach must be a failure to comply with a provision of the franchise that is reasonable and materially significant to the franchise relationship.}{\insrsid15683318 } {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A) (2002).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 This section then gives two different timing requirements for a notice of termination: (1) a notice of termination must be furnished within 120 days of the franchisor acquiring actual or constructive notice of the franchisee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure, if the notice is given not less than ninety days prior to the termination date (pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2804(a)); or (2) a notice of termination must be furnished within sixty days of the franchisor acquiring actual or constructive notice of the franchisee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure, under circumstances in which it would unreasonable for the franchisor to provide notice not less than 90 days prior to t he termination date (pursuant to Title 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2804(b)(1)). 15 U.S.C. }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A) (2002). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [32]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In this case, Mobil furnished the December 29th Notice of Termination, which stated that the franchise would be terminated on January 16, 2000.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee argues that the effective date of termination was not properly indicated because the December 29th Notice of Termination and the Supplemental Notice of Termination provided four dates. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [33]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 A notice terminating a franchise agreement must contain }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the date on which such termination or nonrenewal takes effect.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2804(c)(3)(B) (2002).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The Supplemental Notice of Termination sent by Mobil to Lee on July 20, 2000 was apparently aimed at correcting any potential deficiencies in complying with the timing requirements for providing notice under the PMPA.}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 However, the supplemental notice offers Mobil no support.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The December 29, 1999 notice of termination expressly specified a termination date: }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil hereby terminates its Franchise Agreement, fran chise and franchise relationship with you along with all related supplemental agreements, effective January 16, 2000.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 42 (Notice of Termination).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 On January 16th, Lee met Manlapaz at the service station and }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 voluntarily turned over the site to Mobil.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, p. 245 (Manlapaz}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, there is no genuine issue of material fact that the December 29th Notice of Termination provided the January 16, 2000 date of termi nation, and on that date Mobil took possession of the service station and terminated the Franchise Agreement. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [34]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Without dispute, the December 29th Notice of Termination gave less than ninety days notice before the termination date.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, our inquiry is narrowed to whether there is a genuine issue of material fact that: (1)}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 the breach was reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship, and (2) Mobil complied with section 2804(b)(1).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 a.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Breach of the Franchise Agreement}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [35]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab The December 29th Notice of Termination was based on Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s violation of Articles I(C), II(C), and IV(A) of the franchise agreement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 41 (Notice of Termination).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Article I(C) required Lee to comply with personal performance obligations and commitments.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 4 (Franchise Agreement).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Article II(C) required Lee to make payment by direct debit or other payment method specified by Mobil.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 6 (Franchise Agreement). Article IV(A) governed Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s use of the marketing premises.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 9 (Franchise Agreement). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [36]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee argues that the notice of termination did not mention Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure to make payments for the fuel delivered to him, thus he did not have information to determine whether the termination complied with the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Opening Brief p. 31.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 His argument is unconvincing.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In addition to stating that Lee violated Article II(C), requiring payment of amounts due as specified by Mobil, the December 29th Notice of Termination stated: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In previous warning notices, we outlined your violations and requested that you carry out the above-mentioned provisions of your franchise.} {\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Despite those opportunities to cure, however, you have continued to violate those provisions.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Your account remai ns past due in the sum of $226,101.68. \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, p. 41 (Notice of Termination).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 This notice clearly referred to Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s f ailure to pay amounts past due.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee admitted that he learned of the unpaid debits on October 4, 1999, made payments toward his debt, and engaged in negotiations over payment proposals with Mobil throughout the months of October, November and December of 1999 and up to January 13, 2000.} {\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, pp. 56-62 (Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee does not dispute that Mobil made repeated demands for payment in his meetings with Mobil officials on October 4, November 4, and November 8, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpt of Record, pp. 58-60 (Lee Decl. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 9-11, 13).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Additionally, Lee does not dispute that Mobil demanded payment by letters of November 8, November 26, December 1, December 15, and December 22, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, pp. 355, 356, 360, 363, 368 (Manlapaz Decl.).}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [37]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The December 29th Notice of Termination and the undisputed record show that Lee had ample knowledge of his failure to pay Mobil and his violation of Article II(C) of the Franchise Agreement. The anal ysis turns to whether the breach was reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [38]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab Under the PMPA:}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 an event which is relevant to the franchise relationship and as a result of which termination of the franchise or nonrenewal of the franchise relationship is reasonable includes events such as [the] }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 failure by the franchisee to pay to the franchisor in a timely manner when due all sums to which the franchisor is legally entitled}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 . \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(c)(8) (emphasis added internal, quotation marks omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s undisputed failure to pay all sums to which Mobil was entitled was a material breach of the Franchise Agreement and Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s termination of the Franchise Agreement was justified under the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The next question is whether Mobil complied with the timing requirements of the PMPA.}{ \insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 b.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Compliance with sections 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 2804(b)(1)}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [39]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 As noted above, because Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29th Notice of Termination gave less than ninety days notice prior to the date of termination, section 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii) applies.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 This section provides that the franchisor must have \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 first acquired actual or constructive knowledge of [the franchisee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s] . . . failure . . . not more than 60 days prior to the date on which notification of termination or nonrenewal is given, if less than 90 days notification is given pursuant to section 2804(b)(1) of this title, \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii) (2002).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Section 2804(b)(1) is also applicable under the present circumstances and it provides: \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In circumstances in which it would not be reasonable for the franchisor to furnish notification, not less than 90 days prior to the date on which termination or nonrenewal takes effect, as required by subsection (a)(2) of this section . . . such franchiso r shall furnish notification to the franchisee affected thereby on the earliest date on which furnishing of such notification is reasonably practicable[.] \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2804(b)(1) (2002).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The analysis requires a determination of whether: (1) Mobil acquired actual or constructive notice of Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure to pay within sixty days prior to the December 29th Notice of Termination, and (2) it would have been unreasonable for Mobil to provide ninety days notice.}{\insrsid16715545 \par }{\insrsid15683318\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [40]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee states that Mobil acquired actual or constructive notice of the first unpaid debit as early as October of 1998 as indicated in Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Final Warning letter of December 15, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Opening Brief p. 40.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, Lee argues that more than a year lapsed from the date Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s debits were first returned to the date of the December 29th Notice of Termination, in violation of the sixty day actual or constructive knowledge requirement of section 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We disagree.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The same Mobil letter that Lee uses to support this argument also shows a series of returned debits extending to June 22, 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. II, pp. 364, 316 (Manlapaz Decl).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Each of these returned debits constituted a new breach.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Geib v. Amoco Oil Co}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ., 29 F.3d 1050, 1056 (6th Cir. 1994).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Moreover, it is undisputed that Mobil began demanding payment and commenced negotiations for payment plans in October of 1999. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [41]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The case of }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 California Petroleum Distrib. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ., 589 F.Supp. 282 (E.D. N.Y. 1984), provides a situation very similar to the one at bar.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 In that case, California Petroleum became indebted to Chevron for failing to pay for fuel products and Chevron spent four months attempting to negotiate payment to preserve the franchise agreement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Id.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 at 284-85.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Chevron terminated the franchise agreement and gave sixteen days notice.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Id.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 at 285.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Because Chevron}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s notice of termination provided less than ninety days notice, the issue was whether Chevron had actual or constructive knowledge of California Petroleum}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s breach within sixty days prior to the issuance of the notice of termination.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Id.}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 at 287.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The court held that California Petroleum}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure to pay amounts past due was an ongoing default and that each of Chevron}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s unsuccessful attempts to negotiate payment gave rise to a new event of noncompliance.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Id.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 at 288.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The court found that the last meeting between Chevron and California Petroleum, wherein the franchisee could neither give nor guarantee payment, was a new default and Chevron}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s notice of termination, issued within three weeks of that meeting, was within the sixty day actual or constructive knowledge requirement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Id.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [42]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We agree in principle with }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 California Petroleum}{\cs15\super\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid16715545 3}{\insrsid16715545 }{\fs20\insrsid16715545 Although }{\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 California Petroleum}{ \fs20\insrsid16715545 is a decision of a federal district court, both Lee and Mobil argued the applicability of }{\i\fs20\insrsid16715545 California Petroleum}{\fs20\insrsid16715545 in their briefs. Moreover, the parties did not offer, and this court could not find, appellate case law involving the issues and factual circumstances presented in the instant case.}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 and find that Lee}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure to commence payments on December 28, 1999, pursuant to Mobil}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s last demand letter of December 22, 1999,}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 constituted a new breach of the franchise agreement.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Therefore, we hold that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt \f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29th Notice of Termination was in compliance with the sixty day actual or constructive knowledge requirement of Title 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [43]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee next argues that the eighteen days notice given by Mobil was not reasonable under section 2804(b)(1).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We disagree.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Mobil began negotiations with Lee in October of 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 A series of proposals, counter-proposals and demands for payment were made through December of 1999.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, from October of 1999 through January 16, 2000, Lee had more than three months to attempt to make payments or arrive at a payment plan to Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s satisfaction.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Moreover, altho ugh the last demand letter gave Lee until December 28, 1999 to begin payments, the December 29th Notice of Termination effectively gave Lee eighteen additional days to attempt to cure his deficiencies.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Indeed, the record shows that Lee attempted to save the franchise on January 13 and 14, 2000.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Appellant}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s Excerpts of Record, vol. I, pp. 67-68 (Lee Decl.).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Under these circumstances, we find that Mobil}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s eighteen-day notice of termination was reasonable.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See California Petroleum}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 589 F.Supp at 289 (finding that a sixteen-day notice of termination was reasonable after the franchisor spent four months attempting to negotiate payment); } {\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 cf.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Zipper v. Sun Co.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 947 F.Supp. 6 2, 69 (E.D. N.Y. 1996) (finding that it would have been reasonable for the franchisor to give ninety days notice, }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 or at least some notice which was not effective immediately}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 (emphasis added, internal quotation marks omitted).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [44]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We hold that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29th Notice of Termination was proper under 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2)(A) and the timing requirements of sections 2802(b)(2)(A)(ii) and 2804(b)(1). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Section 2802(b)(2)(B)}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [45]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Because we hold that termination of the Franchise Agreement was proper under section 2802(b)(2)(A), we need not reach the issue of whether it was also p roper under section 2802(b)(2)(B).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\i\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 See Clinkscales}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 , 831 F.2d at 1571 (stating that a franchisor need prove }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 only one of the grounds for termination under the PMPA.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 ). \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 3.}{\b\insrsid15683318 }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Section 2801(13)(B)}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [46]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s final argument is that his failure to pay Mobil resulted from acts which were beyond his control.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Specifically, Lee cites to the PMPA definition of }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 failure}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{ \insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 which provides: }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The term failure does not include . . . any failure for a cause beyond the reasonable control of the franchisee.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 15 U.S.C. }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2801(13)(B) (2002).}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Lee argues that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s negligence in furnishing incorrect information on his monthly account statements was beyond his control and caused his nonpayment.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We disagree. \par }{\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [47]\tab }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 While better accounting practices might have enabled Mobil to discover Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s unpaid debts sooner, Lee also had an affirmative duty to pay any amounts owed to Mobil under Article II(C) of the Franchise Agreement or risk termination under Title 15 U.S.C. }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 2802(b)(2) and 2802(c)(8).}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 As we noted above, Lee does not dispute receiving the FHB monthly statements of his account which afforded him knowledge of the facts.}{\insrsid15683318 }{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Moreover, and as also found above, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s disregard of the FHB statements amounted to a failure to exercise reasonable diligence.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 Thus, Lee}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s failure to make payments was not beyond his reasonable control and section 2801(13)(B) is not available to Lee as a defense. \par \par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4680\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 IV.}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid15683318 {\b\insrsid15683318 \par }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 [48]}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 \tab We find that there are no genuine issues of material fact that Lee breached the Franchise Agreement, that his breach was reasonable and of material significance to the franchise relationship, and that Mobil}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 s December 29th Notice of Termination complied with the provisions of the PMPA.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 We hold that Mobil is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law on these issues.}{\insrsid15683318 }{\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 The summary judgment of the trial court is hereby }{\b\insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 AFFIRMED}{ \insrsid16715545\charrsid15683318 . \par }}