THE STATE OF
In The Supreme Court
Chris Robertson, Plaintiff,
Bumper Man Franchising Company, Inc. and Bumper Man, Inc., Defendants.
ON CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Matthew J. Perry, United States District Judge
Opinion No. 25971
Heard March 15, 2005 - Filed April 18, 2005
Certified Questions Answered
Clinch Heyward Belser, Jr. and Michael J. Polk, both of
Columbia, for Plaintiff.
Natalma M. McKnew and Thomas Warren Epting, both of
Greenville, for Defendants.
JUSTICE PLEICONES: Pursuant to Rule 228, SCACR, we accepted two questions certified by United States District Judge Matthew J. Perry:
1) Does the South Carolina Business Opportunity Sales Act (the Act) S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-57-10 et seq. apply to a contract between a business located in
Texas and a Texas resident, and performed in Texas and Washington?
2) Does the answer to question 1 change if the individual later moves to
South Carolina and signs a new contract with a related entity to be performed in South Carolina?
We answer both questions “No.”
In 2000, plaintiff entered a business agreement with Bumper Man, Inc. (BMI). This agreement, entered into in
The Texas Agreement provided, among other things, that plaintiff would be offered a franchise for no additional cost at some point in the future. About four months after entering the Texas Agreement, plaintiff moved to
In July 2001, plaintiff moved to
The parties acknowledge that the
A. Does the South Carolina Business Opportunity Sales Act (the Act) S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-57-10 et seq. apply to a contract between a business located in
B. Does the answer to question 1 change if the individual later moves to
A. Applicability of the Act to the
The first question asks whether the Act applies to the Texas Agreement, entered into in that state and wholly performed outside
B. Does the Act apply to the Texas Agreement by virtue of the subsequent contract entered into by plaintiff and BMFI in
We answer this question ‘No.’ There is nothing in this record to suggest that the parties to the Texas Agreement contemplated that the plaintiff would relocate to
We note further that the Act applies to the start-up of a business. S.C. Code Ann. § 39-57-20 (Supp. 2004). The application, if any, of the Act to the South Carolina Agreement between plaintiff and BMFI is not before the Court. We emphasize that our answers are restricted to the narrow questions certified.
We answer both certified questions
TOAL, C.J., MOORE, WALLER, and BURNETT, JJ., concur.
 We restrict our discussion to the facts recited in the certification order.
 This circular is required by the FTC Franchise Disclosure Rule, 16 CFR §§ 436 et seq.
 The $12,000 represents the $2,000 relocation fee and $10,000 licensing fee due BMI under the Texas Agreement.
 Plaintiff cites numerous cases in brief for the proposition that a state statute regulating business practices applies where the state has a significant connection with the transaction. Here,