2013University of Western Australia law reviewRequires access

The applicability of unfair contract terms legislation to franchise contracts

Elizabeth Spencer

Open publisher page 3 citations

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.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 3 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available 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.

Key concepts: Principal (computer security), Scope (computer science), Context (archaeology), Law and economics, Legislation, Business, Parliament, Franchise

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The applicability of unfair contract terms legislation to franchise contracts — Research Paper | ScholarLens