The Franchise Owner's most trusted news source


Log In / Register | Jul 16, 2018

Comments regarding this article:

Add new comment


1 Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

It reaches far wider....

... it may nonetheless have the unintended effect of actually undermining access to useful and important [and phony] information for potential franchisees.

Unfortunately, the bottom line may be that highly relevant information becomes less available to potential franchisees...

Unless mistaken, isn't that one of the purposes of confidentiality clauses - to prevent current and ex franchisees from speaking ill of their franchisor to prospective franchisees.  Of course I know that franchisors will deny any such suggestion, and dismiss it as protecting their brand name, but surely it cannot be denied that preventing people from speaking restricts access to 'useful and important information' and certainly makes 'highly relevant information' less available.

Sorry, but this is yet another perfect example of how ineffective the dispute resolution process is and in fact franchising laws are in Australian franchising.  At which point is the franchisor responsible for the operations of their business?

How many franchises would be sold if franchisors were totally honest about their business?  It's all way too easy to point the finger and say the franchisee didn't do proper due diligence.

From my experience, when a franchisor admits to breaching the law by failing to disclose/provide mandatory information in a disclosure document and nothing happens except the franchisee walking away with nothing, I would strongly suggest that this is far from an effective system - except for franchisors!