In the past, the natures of franchise agreements were determined only by the contents thereof and the franchisees’ and franchisors’ fates were in the hands of the author of the particular agreement. In many cases, this led to one-sided agreements where the franchisor was given the opportunity to terminate the agreement if everything did not correlate with the franchisor’s expectations and the franchisee had no opportunity of terminating without becoming liable for direct- or consequential damages, often in substantial amounts.
With the introduction of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, (“the Act”), a franchise agreement has been defined as follows:
“‘franchise agreement’ means an agreement between two parties, being the franchisor and franchisee, respectively— (a) in which, for consideration paid, or to be paid, by the franchisee to the franchisor, the franchisor grants the franchisee the right to carry on business within all or a specific part of the Republic under a system or marketing plan substantially determined or controlled by the franchisor or an associate of the franchisor; (b) under which the operation of the business of the franchisee will be substantially or materially associated with advertising schemes or programmes or one or more trade marks, commercial symbols or logos or any similar marketing, branding, labelling or devices, or any combination of such schemes, programmes or devices, that are conducted, owned, used or licensed by the franchisor or an associate of the franchisor; and (c) that governs the business relationship between the franchisor and the franchisee, including the relationship between them with respect to the goods or services to be supplied to the franchisee by or at the direction of the franchisor or an associate of the franchisor.”
Although the above definition seems rather broad, there are specific references and sections in the Act governing franchise agreements. Some of the most considerable implications on franchise agreements are the following:
It needs to be mentioned that this list of implications is not exhaustive and quite a number of other provisions can be added. These provisions will include provisions which prevent the overvaluation of fees or unreasonable conduct in relation to the risk to be incurred by a party when entering into a franchise agreement.
The regulatory framework applicable to franchise agreements in South Africa has been changed dramatically. The impact it has can have far-reaching consequences.
Franchisors therefore need to ensure that their franchise agreements are in line with the Act. They also need to deal with franchisees in a fair, reasonable and equitable manner.
The importance of consulting with an attorney specialising in this field to gain assistance can only be reiterated.
Douw Breed, director at Barnard Incorporated.
Barnard Incorporated is a firm of attorneys situated in Centurion, Pretoria.
We are always on standby to receive your query - 24 Hour Emergency Line - 072 727 2231