Franchise Advice


soliciting former customers for a certain time period. A recent High Court decision provided some clarity over whether a duty of good faith should be implied into a franchise agreement and whether restrictive covenants are robust enough to withstand challenges based on competition law. The case involved a franchisor that provided home-care services through a network of franchisees and its own corporate branches. The franchisor started offering live-in care services and a dispute arose with one of its franchisees, who was said to be involved in a competing business that provided live-in care. The franchisee argued that they were not in breach but that the franchisor was itself in breach of an implied duty by setting up company- owned branches in competition with its franchisees. Negotiations failed to resolve the differences and the franchisee terminated the franchise agreements, arguing that the franchisor was in repudiatory breach of the implied terms. If correct, the franchisor would not be able to enforce its non-compete restrictive covenants against the franchisee. The franchisee further argued that the franchisor’s restrictive covenants were not enforceable based on common and competition law, as at the time of signing the franchise agreement the franchisor was not offering live-in care services. Following termination, the franchisee continued to trade in a similar business. The franchisor was left with little alternative other than to apply to court for an order to stop the franchisee (and the franchise’s two directors) from breaching the restrictive covenants. One issue that the court had to decide was the validity of the franchisee’s termination, which revolved around whether good faith was implied into the terms of the franchise agreement, as sought by the franchisee.


F


ranchise agreements contain many express terms that a franchisee must comply with. Recently, franchisees have argued that a term should be implied in the agreement that


requires a franchisor to act in good faith in its dealings with its franchisee. English courts, however, have been quite hostile towards recognising an implied duty of good faith in all commercial contracts. Restrictive covenants commonly feature in franchise agreements and are designed to protect, at the end of a franchisee’s licence, the goodwill and customer contacts developed in the territory by restricting the franchisee from being involved in competing business and from


Implied duty of good faith In an earlier case, the High Court had said that there were certain categories of ‘relational contracts’, which it described as long-term contracts that require an ongoing relationship of dependence between the parties, like joint venture, distribution and franchise agreements, into which a court may readily imply a duty of good faith, based on the presumed intention of the parties. At the hearing involving care services, the franchisee relied on this case and argued that a number of terms, based on good faith, were implied in their franchise agreement. The judge refused, however, on the grounds that that the franchise agreements already contained very detailed express terms and many of the


implied terms proposed by the franchisee would have been inconsistent with the express provisions of the agreements.


Restrictive covenants


The judge was satisfied that the clauses were reasonable and enforceable as a matter of common law, as they were necessary to protect a legitimate business interest (eg goodwill). In particular, the franchisor successfully argued that the live-in care provided by the franchisee did amount to a competing business and was caught by the restrictive covenants. This is because the term ‘business’ applied to the franchisor’s business as it continued to develop over time, including any subsequent changes, despite that at the time of signing the agreement the franchise was not offering live-in care as part of its services.


The franchisee argued that the


restrictive covenants were unenforceable because they breached EU and domestic competition law. In broad terms, the Competition Act 1998 prohibits agreements that have as their object the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the UK. The whole point of a restrictive covenant is to prevent the franchisee from trading in the former territory, hence the covenant, is on the face of it, in restraint of trade. The franchisor successfully argued, however, that the restrictive covenants: • Are necessary in order to ensure that the know-how and assistance provided by the franchisor does not benefit competitors, and


• Establish the control necessary to maintain the identity and reputation of the network identified by a common name or symbol,


and so they do not constitute restrictions of competition. It is important to note that the directors had no prior knowledge or experience in the care business before entering into the agreements and the know-how and assistance provided by the franchisor to the franchisees (and its directors) was of an extent and type likely to turn them into effective competitors. This case provides clarity going


forward. The court was not persuaded that this particular franchise agreement was one to which the implied terms, as argued by the franchisee, would apply and the judgment is a useful reminder of the need for caution before challenging restrictive covenants. n


GURMEET JAKHU


Gurmeet Jakhu is a partner at Nelsons Solicitors


March 2015 | Businessfranchise.com | 59


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  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112