!"#$%&'()*+,-'%)
!
ranchisees are increasingly better informed not only about their rights but also about various ways in which they can bring pressure to bear on their franchisor with whom they may
have a dispute. Franchisors, on the other hand, are increasingly aware of the need to protect their reputations, particularly those facing increased competition. Clauses in franchise agreements, which
are usually referred to as non-disclosure provisions, have been commonplace for some time. These are clauses that prohibit a franchisee from disclosing to third parties (other than their professional advisors) the contents of their franchise agreements, details about their franchised business or that of the franchisor and the method of operation of a particular franchise. The reasons for such a prohibition are obvious. Franchisors expend a good deal of
resources in establishing their franchise and it is therefore not surprising that they seek to guard those matters that they perceive to be this, of course, is the franchise agreement. Having said that, it does depend on
who the franchisor is. Some franchisors freely distribute copies of their franchise agreements to prospective franchisees at a very early stage of discussions with them. Others, however, are reluctant to part with a copy of their franchise agreement until they are fairly certain that the franchisee will be proceeding. So far so good. What we are concerned with here,
however, is a trend we see emerging of a different kind of non-disclosure provision in a franchise agreement, in addition to those referred to above. This seeks to restrict the franchisee from discussing/disclosing to a third party generally anything about their business or the franchise which is not and in particular anything about a dispute
a franchisee may have with his or her franchisor or indeed any dissatisfaction with the franchise or the way in which it is being run. Is it such a bad thing? I suggest not. Most commercial enterprises would prefer
not to air any grievances they may have with their trading partners in public and franchisors are no exception. The motives behind such a disclosure by a franchisee may also be tainted with malice – in my experience, they are seldom used as a legitimate means of resolving grievances. More often than not, it is used by franchisees as a threat to bring the franchisor to heel in
would result in the ultimate sanction of termination of the franchise agreement. What is happening now is that the
new clauses effectively spell out (and are therefore intended to act as) a deterrent and a warning to the franchisee, in what was previously stated in a more restrained manner. I have heard it said by some that by including such a provision, franchisors exhibit signs of insecurity and possibly paranoia and that any franchisor who deals fairly and ethically with its franchisees weathering a storm that might be whipped up by a franchisee. At the end of the day, however, it has to
,-&"#.*+)//)')*%012'3/' "4"&/'5*"5'+6'5*/7'%8/#17' "+&'5*/+&'9&+/:"#./)' 5*&%09*'5*/';/2+"<'5*/7' 5*/'&/./+:+#9'/#2'%6'"#' +#=0#.5+%#'&/)5&"+#+#9'5*/;' 6&%;'2%+#9')%'60&5*/&>
the mistaken belief that (in some cases at least) in making such disclosure/revelation (or more usually, in threatening to do so), the franchisor will be so afraid of what it rightly or wrongly perceives will be the ensuing damage to its reputation, that it will change its attitude and approach to its franchisee irrespective of the merits of the franchisee’s case. In practice, of course, such provisions
have always existed in most franchise agreements in a different guise. Most franchise agreements have long contained clauses that restrict franchisees from doing anything to damage the reputation of the franchisor, or its brand, the breach of which
be remembered that if a franchisee by its conduct adversely affects the reputation of a franchise, this will adversely affect not only the franchisor but also the franchisee itself and all other members of the network. Whether or not such a provision is
enforceable at law will depend on the circumstances of each case. However, franchisees should be aware that if they openly air their grievances through the receiving end of an injunction restraining them from doing so further and, quite possibly, a claim for damages from their franchisor for any damage to that franchisor’s reputation. It is always advisable, as it is in any kind
of relationship, to engage in a dialogue that than resorting to what amounts to forcing the hand of the opposite party.
!"#$%%&'()*"#+
!"#$%%&'()*"#+'+)'"'),#+%&'-%#)./0"#0' )%/+-+0%&'1+0*'2*,&&"&3)'42%/+-+0%&)56'"' -%77,&-+"/'8&"-0+-,'"39+)+#:' ;&"#-*+)%&)'"#3';&"#-*+),,)'+#'0*,'<=' "#3'+#0,&#"0+%#"//>
November 2012 |
Businessfranchise.com | 17
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100