Mobil Oil Corporation v. Bransford
Florida Supreme Court
648 So. 2d 119 (1995)
- Written by Tom Syverson, JD
Facts
Jeremy Bransford (plaintiff) sued Mobil Oil Corporation (defendant) after he was attacked and beaten at a Mobil Mini Mart gas station by an employee who allegedly had a history of assaulting customers. Mobil leased the station to franchisee Alan Berman under a franchise agreement. The employee worked for Berman, not Mobil, but Bransford asserted Mobil had an agency relationship with Berman because Mobil owned the gas station and the franchise agreement required the station to sell Mobil products and use Mobil trademarks and logos throughout. In addition, Mobil allegedly sent representatives to the station to provide routine franchise-support services. However, the franchise agreement specified that Berman was “an independent businessman” and that nothing in the agreement gave Mobil any right to control or direct how Berman conducted or managed the business. Bransford did not claim Mobil actually represented that Berman was its agent, only that using Mobil symbols and products prominently throughout the station created an implicit agency relationship. The trial court granted Mobil summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. Mobil appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

