Recently, Mr. Ye Jing of Beijing King&Capital Law Firm accepted the client's commission to represent a franchise contract dispute arbitration case. During the representation, Ms. Ye Jing searched a large number of relevant cases and communicated with the client for many times. In Hangzhou Arbitration Commission, after several hearings, the arbitration tribunal fully adopted Ye Jing's advice, and finally ruled that the client was awarded a full refund of the franchise fees and store deposit.
The basic facts of the case
Company A is a national chain of tea drink brand, through the way to participate in exhibitions in major cities to attract franchisees, B through the way to know the company operated by Company A tea drink brand, and was attracted by Company A in the exhibition of the promise of a high profit, and then decided to sign a “Franchise Contract” with the company, the company will be located in a region of Beijing in the contract of franchising agent awarded to the company. During the period of fulfillment of the franchise contract, Company A fulfilled part of the contractual obligations, such as site selection recommendations, but B after inspection are not in line with the requirements of the site has not been implemented, B has not actually carried out business activities. After the expiration of the franchise contract, B repeatedly with the company communication and negotiation, requesting the company to return all the franchise fee and store deposit, and the company has been to the contract obligations have been fulfilled on the grounds of refusal to return, B helpless to find the King&Capital Ye Jing lawyers to represent the case, to the Hangzhou Arbitration Commission for commercial arbitration.
The focus of the dispute
The legal relationship of the case for the franchise contract dispute, the focus of the dispute is mainly for the expiration of the franchise contract, company A should return the franchise fee and store deposit.
Analyze the difficulties of this case
yeh jing lawyer accepts the commission of b, the first time to draw up the relevant arbitration application documents and related evidence submitted to the hangzhou arbitration commission, requiring company a to return all the franchise fees and store deposit. Before and after accepting this case, Ye Jing lawyers access to a large number of similar cases of court judgment for reference, found that eighty to ninety percent of the cases that the franchisor has provided some of the relevant services and franchise contract has expired, the verdict is that the franchisor does not need to return the franchise fee, making the case of the odds of winning a lot of increased uncertainty.
Undertake the lawyer then and the client for many times to communicate, hoping not to miss any evidence in favor of our side. In the process of the cocoon in the contractor lawyer found that company A has been in the exhibition of exaggerated publicity, and at the same time in the exhibition book when the relevant forecast of net profit and other data listed in the suspicion of false publicity. Undertake the lawyer then decided to take a different approach, seize this idea as the main litigation point, and other similar cases and different litigation strategy.
Contractor's point of view
In this case, the franchisor, Company A, publicized that it was a joint venture between a mainland company and a Taiwan enterprise at the investment promotion meeting in Beijing, and that the tea leaves of the tea drink brand it held were directly supplied by Taiwan, while it invited many Hong Kong and Taiwan celebrities to help publicize for it, so as to create a strong resource and capability for the brand in the tea drink industry to the franchisee, Company B. At the same time, the contract was concluded with Company A, which was a company that was a member of the Taiwan Tea Association and a member of the Taiwan Association of Teachers and Professional Teachers. At the same time, Company A in the beginning of the contract to B claimed that the daily net profit amount of each tea store and the annual net profit amount is very substantial. In terms of cooperation guarantee, Company A even promised to provide long-term services and guarantees in the aspects of project establishment, project preparation and project operation. Based on the trust of Company A's publicity background, coupled with celebrity endorsement, the amount of net profit promised, etc., so that B fell into the wrong cognition, and then signed a franchise contract and pay a high amount of franchise fees and store opening deposit.
According to the “Regulations on the Administration of Commercial Franchising” and “Measures for the Administration of Information Disclosure of Commercial Franchising” and other relevant laws and regulations, Company A should provide true, accurate and complete information to Company B. It did not make any risk tips about the content of cooperation guarantee and net profit figures in the brochure, which made Company B trust, so Company B believed that Company A violated the principle of honesty and credit, and that there was negligence in the contracting process, and should compensate for the corresponding trust. Company A should compensate B for the corresponding loss of trust benefit, i.e., all the franchise fee and store opening deposit agreed in the franchise contract.
Arbitration Result
After several hearings in Hangzhou Arbitration Commission, the Arbitration Tribunal fully adopted the viewpoints of the attorney, and considered that Company A's behavior had caused B's trust, and that Company A was negligent in the contracting process and should compensate B for the loss of the corresponding trust benefit. In the end, the arbitration tribunal fully supported B's arbitration application and demanded Company A to refund the full amount of the franchise fee and store opening deposit.
