The franchising business model is an attractive option for both franchisors and franchisees. Franchisors grant the rights to use their intellectual property and business system to franchisees for a fee. Franchisees buy into the tried-and-tested business system, receive ongoing training and support and operate under an established trade mark or trade name. Fundamental characteristics of the franchise relationship include: the contractual nature thereof, the use of the franchisor‘s intellectual property by the franchisee, operating the franchise outlet according to the franchisor‘s business system, providing training and support to the franchisee, and paying for the use of the franchisor‘s intellectual property and business system. These characteristics have resulted in inherent tensions between franchisors and franchisees, which arise by virtue of, inter alia, the control exercised by the franchisor over the use of its intellectual property, franchisor opportunism, poor franchisee selection, franchisee free-riding, inadequate training and support, or the sunk investments made by the franchisee. The franchisor and franchisee generally use a franchise agreement to regulate their relationship. However, the franchise agreement itself can also lead to conflict between the parties, such as that arising from poor drafted clauses relating to territorial rights, renewal, payment, termination, restraint of trade, or confidentiality. The franchise agreement is typically drafted in the standard-form, resulting in franchisees faced with unequal bargaining power. The common law of contract is based on principles of freedom of contract and sanctity of contract and is, therefore, limited in its ability to resolve the tensions between the parties. Various models for regulating the franchising industry can be adopted, for example, self-regulation, statutory regulation, or co-regulation. Australia and Canada have adopted the statutory model by enacting franchise-specific legislation and New Zealand has followed the self-regulation model with no legislation regulating its franchising industry. South Africa did not formally regulate the franchise relationship through legislation until the enactment of its consumer protection legislation, the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 (CPA), which includes a franchisee within the definition of consumer. This entails that all franchisees enjoy the protection of the CPA and all franchise agreements must comply with the provisions of the CPA. The South African economy is unique in that it is burdened by the social ills of its discriminatory past, such as high levels of unemployment, illiteracy and inequality. The country is faced with a slow growing economy with little development and promotion of entrepreneurship among small businesses. Despite the burdensome economy within which the franchising industry is required to operate, the industry‘s contribution to the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country has remained stable. The South African government has identified the franchising industry as an opportunity for job creation, economic empowerment and promotion of entrepreneurship. The aim of the study is to ascertain whether the CPA is the correct legislative vehicle to regulate the franchise relationship, while enhancing the growth and development of the franchising industry. This thesis concludes that the introduction of fundamental consumer rights and rights of redress for franchisees through the provisions of the CPA has contributed to, or assisted in, the removal of the tensions inherent in the franchise relationship. In particular, the CPA has adequately addressed the lack of formal regulation of the franchise relationship through its disclosure requirements and its regulations. The thesis also proposes amendments to some of the CPA regulations, which will further enhance the disclosure requirements, and aid in curtailing the conflict caused by the terms of the franchise agreement. The thesis further proposes that the application of the CPA to franchise agreements should be limited to small, inexperienced or unsophisticated franchisees that are in need of the protection. An essential premise is that the CPA aims to protect ordinary consumers, including juristic persons, in day-to-day transactions (up to the threshold amount), to avoid suppliers taking advantage of them. Larger, more sophisticated or experienced franchisees, with stronger bargaining power and access to legal advice, do not necessarily require the protection of the CPA. The criteria relating to the size of class of micro-, very small and small enterprises, but not medium enterprises, within the different sectors or sub-sectors in terms of the National Small Enterprises Act, 102 of 1996, should be considered and used as a guide to determine whether the CPA applies to a franchise agreement. The development, growth and success of the franchising industry depends on the education of prospective franchisees wanting to adopt the franchising business model and invest in the industry. The CPA does not recognise or promote the roles of the various stakeholders (franchisors, franchisees and the government) with regard to the provision of education, training, ongoing support and assistance to prospective franchisees. This thesis proposes that mechanisms to enhance the education of prospective franchisees should be promoted, such as tandem franchising, obtaining advice undertakings from prospective franchisees before concluding franchise agreements, and increasing the role of the Consumer Commission in providing franchising education.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:27810 |
| Date | January 2017 |
| Creators | Biggs, Lynn |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Doctoral, PhD |
| Format | xiii, 443 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0033 seconds