and therefore they must close the restaurants or be in violation of the Lanham and Copyright Acts. However, in the exact same scenario Defendants may believe that, by closing the restaurants, they would be in breach of the agreements by. not operating the franchises if Papa John’s in fact decided not to terminate the agreements despite the discretion to do so. This cannot be the proper outcome. That is why the Franchise Agreement called for Papa John’s to eventually give Defendants some notice for the termination to be effective. 4 . Specifically, Defendants assert that the $125,000.00 cost represented to them to build a Papa John's restaurant was actually $200,000.00. Defendants allege that they were told the upstate New York area supported’the Papa John F.Supp.2d 698 (D.Md.2001) (<HOLDING>); Brock v. Baskin Robbins, USA, Co., 2003 WL
holding rules 410 and 174f preclude impeaching defendant with statements made in the expectation of a plea agreement including document  signed during plea negotiations holding that statements made in the course of negotiation were not contracts and such statements were merged into the final written agreement holding that statements made prior to signing of lease with integration clause were not actionable in fraudulent misrepresentation holding that a witness could testify about statements made to him by a police department investigator because the statements were an admission by partyopponent and were thus not excluded by the hearsay rule holding that any actionable statements made during negotiations were superceded by fully integrated franchise agreement and could not reasonably be relied on by franchi see