We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
16 October 2018
In the case of Ali v Abbeyfield VE Ltd (2018 Chancery Division), four former Vision Express optician franchisees were successful in their claim against their franchisor, in which they alleged that they had been induced to enter into their franchise agreements on the basis of false information provided by a Vision Express employee. The claimants brought a claim for fraudulent, or alternatively negligent, misrepresentation against Vision Express.
The case highlights the importance of ensuring that:
The case also demonstrates that:
In 2007 and 2008 the claimants entered into franchise agreements with Vision Express (which took the form of joint venture agreements) to set up and run Vision Express stores in Southport, Llandudno and Macclesfield. Vision Express provided overdraft facilities to assist the claimants with start-up costs. The stores proved to be loss making and, in 2012 and 2013, the claimants terminated the agreements and brought claims against Vision Express. Their claim was that they had been induced to enter into the agreements as a result of fraudulent, or alternatively negligent, misrepresentations made by one of Vision Express's employees (a manager working in business development). The alleged misrepresentations included:
The High Court set out the four components of fraudulent misrepresentation:
In the case of a fraudulent misrepresentation, there is a rebuttable presumption that it is intended to be relied upon. Vision Express argued that it did not intend the claimants to rely on the representations made.
The High Court ruled in favour of the claimants. The representations had indeed been made, they were all false and Vision Express, through its employee, either knew that they were false or was reckless as to whether they were true. As fraudulent misrepresentation was found, the High Court did not consider the claimants' secondary case of negligent misrepresentation but had it done so, it would have found in favour of the claimants on this count too.
Vision Express did not rebut the presumption that the representations were intended to be relied upon, and it was clear that it did intend the claimants to rely on the representations made. As there had been reliance, the claimants were therefore entitled to recover their losses arising from the agreements.
The High Court separately considered a clause in the agreements that stated all pre-contractual representations to be relied upon by a franchisee must be annexed to the agreement although, importantly, there was a carve-out for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court did not need to rule on this point as fraudulent misrepresentation was found, but had it done so it would have concluded that the clause was unreasonable for the purposes of Section 3(1) of the Misrepresentation Act 1967 and Vision Express could not rely on the clause to exclude its liability for the misrepresentations. The factors that the High Court took into account when determining reasonableness were:
Franchisors should take care to assess the accuracy of information given to prospective franchisees. Franchisors should invest in training their sales staff so that they are attuned to the legal risks which are inherent in any sales process.
The case highlights the importance of ensuring that franchise contracts deal with pre-contract risks appropriately. Boilerplate limitations and exclusions of liability are a useful way of minimising risk and rebutting weak or spurious claims, but if the underlying facts point towards franchisor culpability, a boilerplate clause may not be enough.
Finally, even though the franchise agreement is often presented as a non-negotiable contract, franchisees should undertake their own due diligence (legal or otherwise) of the franchise documentation to flush out any issues before the franchise arrangement is entered into (most people would not contemplate buying a house without a survey).
Equally, franchisors have a vested interest in ensuring that their franchisees take this step, as an open and frank conversation prior to signing can be the difference between a successful partnership and court proceedings further down the line. In some jurisdictions, such as Australia, regulators are seeking compulsory, rather than discretionary, independent financial, legal and business advice for franchisees before they sign final contractual documents. This is an issue which the franchise community in the United Kingdom (currently self-regulated) and the British Franchise Association in particular should give serious consideration to.
For further information on this topic please contact Gordon Drakes at Fieldfisher by telephone (+44 20 7861 4000) or email (email@example.com). The Fieldfisher website can be accessed at www.fieldfisher.com.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.