Is constructive termination a cause of action under the PMPA?
Shell contends that the PMPA requires an “actual,” rather than “constructive” termination before the franchisee has a cause of action under the PMPA, because the words of the statute are unambiguous. See Brief for Shell Oil Products at 23. Shell argues that the dictionary definition and ordinary meaning of “terminate” is to “put [to] an end,” which would require some aspect of the franchise agreement to end before the a cause of action develops under the statute. See id. at 24. However, Mac’s points out that the text of the statute indicates that “termination includes cancellation.” Brief for Mac’s Shell Service at 26–27. Mac’s reads this to mean that termination includes, but is not limited to, cancellation. See id. at 26. Mac’s argues that the PMPA, interpreted as a whole, does not require a franchisee to actually go out of business in order to have a claim for wrongful termination, but rather, constructive termination suffices. See Brief for Mac’s Shell Service at 20. Mac’s supports
