or employment decisions. Nor does the provision of routine contractual support services refute this conclusion. 648 So.2d at 120. On the contrary, to create liability by apparent agency, the circumstances must be such as “to communicate to the plaintiff the idea that the franchisor is exercising substantial control.” Id. at 121; see Estate of Miller v. Thrifty Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 637 F.Supp.2d 1029, 1039 (M.D.Fla.2009) (applying Florida law). As this court has previously stated, “Florida law is clear that the use of a logo or trademark symbol alone cannot create an apparent agency.” Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Cornerstone Bus., Inc., 872 So.2d 333, 336 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (citing Bransford, 648 So.2d at 120); see also Pappas v. Smart Health U.S.A., 861 So.2d 84, 85 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). C. No Representation by Jackson Hewitt The
holding that agreements established agency relationship holding that the medicaid statute did not create an enforceable cause of action against a private health care facility holding that the permissive use by a health food store of the franchisors name did not create an agency relationship holding evidence which established that use of property was permissive showed use of property was not adverse holding that adverse inference rule is permissive