Get in Touch Menu

Chink in the armour:  the High Court highlights a flaw in franchise agreements

11 November 2011

Franchisees benefit from exploiting the franchised brand and they should act to uphold the brand’s reputation.  Equally, franchisors must ensure that their franchise agreements provide them with adequate recourse in the event a rogue franchisee acts in a way that may damage the brand.

The case of MMP v Antal 2011 highlights the importance of ensuring adequate provisions are in the franchise agreement, and that termination procedures are carried out correctly.

MMP (the franchisee) entered into a franchise agreement with Antal (the franchisor). An employee of MMP accessed information that was then used for improper purposes and Antal’s management feared damage to their brand. They terminated the agreement on the grounds that MMP had breached a ‘substantial term’ of the agreement not to ‘affect adversely (Antal’s) name, trade marks or other intellectual property’.

The court ruled that Antal had not brought enough evidence to show that the brand had been damaged. Antal had therefore wrongfully terminated the agreement. Although the court accepted that Antal’s fears of brand damage were genuine, this was not sufficient reason to terminate under the agreement as it was drafted.

Practically, it may be quite difficult to establish actual damage caused to a brand. Indeed, in this case, despite establishing the improper use of the information, the court was not satisfied that these actions necessarily caused damage. Since Antal had unlawfully terminated the agreement, they were liable to pay some damages to MMP.

Franchisors should carefully consider the terms of their agreements and ensure that these grant them the flexibility to take appropriate action to protect their brand. The outcome of this case may have been very different had there been provisions in the franchise agreement to enable Antal to terminate where they had a ‘reasonable belief’ that MMP had damaged the brand name.

If you need clear and pragmatic legal advice, we’re here to help so please get in touch.

Contact us

Disclaimer: All legal information is correct at the time of publication but please be aware that laws may change over time. This article contains general legal information but should not be relied upon as legal advice. Please seek professional legal advice about your specific situation - contact us; we’d be delighted to help.
Chris Wills LLB (Hons)
View profile
Related services
Share this article
Resources to help

Related articles

Changes to company law – what businesses need to know


This week, initial changes to company law – including the biggest changes to Companies House since it began – will start to take effect. Here, our corporate and commercial team…

Chris Wills LLB (Hons)

Unearthing the implicit duty of cooperation in commercial contracts


In the world of business, contracts are the bedrock upon which deals are built. These carefully crafted documents are a testament to the mutual understanding between parties, outlining their respective…

Richard Holland BA (Hons)
Senior associate, solicitor

Why sole director companies should check articles of association


A recent case has highlighted the importance of ensuring a company is incorporated with carefully drafted articles of association, if there is only one director. All limited companies must have…

Helen Howes LLM
Associate, solicitor
Contact us