BuyWine, Inc., sold wines produced by Country Wine, Inc., under a distributorship agreement. In 2006, BuyWine experienced a severe decline in the demand for one of Country Wine’s wines, Riunite, mostly because of a recall of that wine resulting from contamination problems in the fall of 2005. Because of decreasing sales, Country Wine sent a letter to BuyWine, which stated as follows: “You are aware that Country Wine’s corporate policy requires our distributors to maintain no less than a 60-day inventory of products. Not only are you out of stock on most items in our line, but our records indicate that the last activity on your account was a credit in January of 2006, and your last purchase was in April of 2005. Your lack of interest in and support of the Country Wine line leaves us no alternative but to terminate our distributorship relationship with you, effective sixty (60) days from your receipt of this notice.” In fact, BuyWine held, on average, a ninety-six-day inventory of Country Wine wines. In support of its allegation that BuyWine showed a “lack of interest in and support of the Country Wine line,” Country Wine had indicated that BuyWine routinely failed to send a representative to Country Wine’s sales meetings. Yet there was no evidence that those meetings were mandatory, and BuyWine always received notebooks from Country Wine containing the information from the meetings. Although BuyWine requested a meeting with Country Wine to discuss these issues, Country Wine terminated the franchise relationship without responding to BuyWine’s request. In BuyWine’s lawsuit against Country Wine for wrongful termination of the franchise relationship, what should the court decide? Discuss.