The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Jun 24, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


3 Comments

Ray Borradale's picture

Here is another good example

Here is another good example of why the South Australian Small Business Commissioner is so necessary.  And while it does not relate to franchising directly, most will see the parallels and danger.

I had a visitor yesterday who had worked for the giant Woolworths at one of their warehouses for many years.

A farmer does a deal to sell cherries and the truck arrives at the warehouse with 150 10kg cartons. It is then unloaded, rejected and sent to a holding area for a few days while Woolies screws the farmer. Then it is un-rejected.

What choice does the small farmer have but to concede or throw it away and starve? This is but one practice and apparently Coles do the same.

South Australia has the power to act where the federal government would accept the lies and throw their hands in the air. Whether it’s a manufacturer, major retailer, insurance company, banks or a franchisor [etc], the ACCC under Samuel adopted a rubber stamp approach creating massive numbers of small business failures while killing industries, sending profits off shore and making Australia dependent on imports.

Ray Borradale's picture

Scott, the opinions of three

Scott, the opinions of three experts in Consitutional Law stated that the Sherry would be wasting his time. Admittedly the federal government has a recent record of heading to the High Court when the advice was against it. And consequently getting its butt kicked.

Mr Sherry

I see Mr Sherry has broken his long standing silence on franchising, and come out swinging.

Kind of ironic really, given that it is his silence and inaction at a Federal level that has seen the need for States to 'go it alone'.

The FCA have obviously wheeled out their own personal attack dog into the fight in response to the changes in SA.

Mr Sherry is threatening a High Court challenge to the proposed laws on the grounds they are unconstitutional?

Who pays for that? The tax payer or the FCA (they are already familiar with the path to the High Court when they get upset at a decision against a franchisor)?

I am no lawyer, but I would guess a challenge to the High Court to challenge the introduction of a State based law has some rather large ramifications for State based laws overall?

Given the recent record of the Federal Government in the High Court re the 'Malaysian Solution', there would not seem to be too much to worry about from Mr Sherry and his team.

The FCA on the other hand, will not give up without a fight - they have way too much to lose!