Latest franchising review likely to lead to more improvements

Last month the Australian Government publicly released a report detailing the independent review into the franchising sector in Australia.  The background that led to the commissioning of the report, and links to the report itself, can be found here.

 

The report makes 18 recommendations.  The aim being to recommend ways of simplifying and improving the clarity of regulations governing franchising.

 

So, what does the report recommend?  Some recommendations are:

• amending the Code so franchisors when informing a franchisee of its decision to renew or enter a new franchise agreement, the franchisor must also provide a disclosure document at the same time
• modifying parties’ obligations to act in good faith (this also includes during negotiations as well as during the term of the agreement).
• additional and tighter controls on marketing funds, including such funds be held in trust (many franchise agreements require franchisees to make regular financial contributions, additional to other franchise fees, to a central marketing fund controlled by the franchisor that’s meant to be applied for that purpose)
• the Code be amended to require franchisors to provide prospective franchisees with a short summary of the key risks and matters they should be aware of when going into franchising (generally, would seem to be a good idea, providing it doesn’t result in generic and convoluted overly technical disclaimers that is likely to discourage prospects from reading these, rather than to take the time to aware of and consider the usual business risks so an informed decision is made)
• amending the Code so franchisors are prohibited from imposing unreasonable significant unforeseen capital expenditure on franchisees (I’ve seen this happen far too often over the years, even cases where a prospect was “assured” there was no foreseen capital expenditure required, only to be hit with such requirement within weeks, or less, of entering a franchisee agreement)
• amending the Code so that franchisors are prohibited, in the absence of a court order, from making franchisees being responsible for certain legal costs in a dispute resolution process and, interestingly, requiring franchisees to conduct their court case outside the jurisdiction, or State, in which the franchisee’s business operates.
• amending the Code regarding the transfer, renewal or end of a franchise agreement so that a franchisee must provide all information reasonably required by the franchisor when making the request for consent to transfer/sell or renew, but franchisors will not be deemed to have consented until 6 weeks after receiving all such information to enable it to properly evaluate the request (without more clarification I’m unsure here; this could enable a franchisor , intentionally or not, to delay or frustrate a franchisee’s request using the excuse the franchisee hasn’t yet provided all the required info).

The Franchising Code of Conduct and Australian franchising has been reviewed several times since the Code first came into existence in 1998.  Overall, it appears to have resulted in a highly regulated framework in the Australian business format franchising system relative to comparable other counties.

Then again, it’s probably fair to say too, that it’s likely why we have a world leading regulatory but successful and balanced framework for such.  If you’re interested in reading more about previous comments I’ve made on this subject, click here.

 

Meanwhile, let’s see what recommendations from this latest review will be implemented by this or the next Australian government.

Swimming pool NSW law changes - attention property owners

Recent changes to NSW swimming pool laws impose new  added obligations on property owners with swimming pools.

 

Property owners must, before 29 October 2013, register swimming pools on their property with their local council and obtain certification, or face a fine.  If this applies to you, you can register, now, online on the NSW Swimming Pool Register, here.

 

Will you be selling your property, with a pool?  You will... one day.  Note the following new requirement.

 

From 29 April 2014, contracts for the sale of land on which there’s a swimming pool, must have attached to them:

1.  A copy of either: a valid certificate of compliance; or an occupation certificate less than 3 years old authorising the use of the swimming pool; and
2. Evidence that the swimming pool is registered – this will be a new additional compulsory prescribed document.  While this is a topic for another article, if a compulsory prescribed document is not attached to a contract at the time it’s entered, the buyer has additional rights to get out of the contract, even if the buyer’s cooling-off period has expired.

Is your property an investment property and you’re not selling?  From 29 April 2014, you won’t be able to lease it without first providing a valid compliance certificate.

  

A major reason for the tightening up of swimming pool laws, of course, is to further combat children drownings and near drownings.

There's still a little time but if you're a pool owner, don't be complacent.

No funds? Don’t buy. Simple.

You know how that saying goes... “I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times...”

 

Buying and selling real estate is serious.  It’s seriously legal stuff.  It’s one area where contract law issues can cause big problems for ordinary folk.  Not unlike when one hears of businesses having a legal fight over breaches of contract.

 

In simple terms, if two parties validly enter a contract and one party breaks the contract, that party is liable to the innocent party for the loss the innocent party suffers as a result.

 

Like most lawyers, when acting for a property buyer, one the first questions I ask is whether they have the funds, either cash or an unconditional loan approval, to pay for it.  If they don’t, either don’t buy, or at least don’t commit to the contract before funds are secured.

 

It’s not uncommon for buyers intending to finance, at least in part, their property purchase from the proceeds from their sale.

 

The premise is, always ensure you have binding sale contract with your buyer (eg. where your buyer’s cooling-off rights have expired) before you’re committed to your purchase.  Otherwise, if you commit buy in the expectation your sale is about to happen and it doesn’t, you could be left with a financial disaster on your hands.

 

Sounds logical, doesn’t it.  Yet it happens far too often reported in this high profile case involving actor Toni Collette and her husband.  Their breach is reported to have cost them $800,000.  They reneged on their purchase contract when they couldn’t sell their own home.  The seller suffered huge loss when they couldn’t re-sell their property for the amount Collette had originally contracted to buy it

The numbers in that case were big.  Even so, even when we’re talking of more typical average Sydney outer suburban home prices, a $10,000, $20,000 or $50,000 liability can cause financial pain.

As the reporter states:

“...get your finances approved before you buy, and if you’re selling and buying in the same market have a contingency plan.”

There’s often much pressure when trying to get the timing right when dealing with simultaneous sale and purchases.  More reason, I say, to ensure you have your solicitor on board to help you though these minefields.