of termination dated September 13, 1997. See Exh. l.F. To date, defendants have failed to execute a new lease with plaintiff nor have they surrendered the premises. In light of the above, the Court will grant plaintiffs request for an order requiring defendants to comply with the terms of the lease option agreement. Specific performance is appropriate under the facts presented in the instant case, especially due to defendants’ failure to abide by their promise to lease the shop to plaintiff upon termination of the franchise agreement. Plaintiff has persuasively argued that an inability to preserve the goodwill already accumulated at the location would result in irreparable harm to plaintiff corporation. See Jiffy Lube Int’l Inc. v. Weiss Bros., Inc., 834 F.Supp. 683, 691 (D.N.J.1993) (<HOLDING>); Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc. v. Dowco, Inc., Bus.
holding in a case decided under ohio law that a franchisor cannot be found liable for failure to act in good faith where it has done no more than to insist on enforcing its contract rights to the detriment of its franchisee holding that a restrictive covenant will be upheld where a franchisor has a protectable interest in the sale of his franchise holding that franchisor has an interest in the goodwill its franchise has created holding that franchisor not only has valid interest in protecting good will it has developed but it also has an interest in being able to place a new franchisee at or near the same location where its goodwill has been created recognizing that california has a valid interest in protecting a california company from copyright infringement