The applicability of unfair contract terms legislation to franchise contracts
Elizabeth Spencer
Abstract
Elizabeth Spencer
Abstract
In 2010, the Commonwealth Parliament implemented a new Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This law, for the first time in Australia, regulates unfair terms in standard form contracts, but is limited to contracts classed as consumer contracts. This article argues that it is appropriate to extend the unfair contract terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL beyond the definition of consumer under the ACL to encompass franchisees as consumers in a business context, and it explains the flaws in the principal arguments against the protection of franchisees under the UCT legislation. As discussion of the scope of UCT often centres on the 'business' versus 'consumer' distinction, this article explains why this distinction detracts from the proper focus of analysis, a focus that consists of the two principal elements of the UCT provisions: unfair terms and standard-form contracts.
OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
In 2010, the Commonwealth Parliament implemented a new Australian Consumer Law (ACL). This law, for the first time in Australia, regulates unfair terms in standard form contracts, but is limited to contracts classed as consumer contracts. This article argues that it is appropriate to extend the unfair contract terms (UCT) provisions of the ACL beyond the definition of consumer under the ACL to encompass franchisees as consumers in a business context, and it explains the flaws in the principal arguments against the protection of franchisees under the UCT legislation. As discussion of the scope of UCT often centres on the 'business' versus 'consumer' distinction, this article explains why this distinction detracts from the proper focus of analysis, a focus that consists of the two principal elements of the UCT provisions: unfair terms and standard-form contracts.
Key concepts: Principal (computer security), Scope (computer science), Context (archaeology), Law and economics, Legislation, Business, Parliament, Franchise