<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>

<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/">

	<channel>
	  <!-- main channel info -->
        <title>NEWS &amp; LEGAL</title>
        <link>http://franchiseesforum.com/forums/58</link>
        <description>
        <![CDATA[ <strong>News &amp; developments in the Franchising Industry that you will find interesting &amp; helpful.</strong> ]]>
        </description>

		<!-- optional elements -->
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2006, Kickapps</copyright>
		<managingEditor>feeds@kickapps.com (FeedMaster)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>webmaster@kickapps.com (WebMaster)</webMaster>
		<!-- note: dates need to be RFC 822 formated "Sat, 07 Sep 2002 00:00:01 GMT" -->
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:16:45 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:43:38 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>Kickapps Feeds 1.0</generator>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<!-- <cloud domain="rpc.kickapps.com" port="80" path="/RPC2" registerProcedure="pingMe" protocol="soap"/>-->
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<rating>
		{pics-1.1 &quot;http://www.icra.org/ratingsv02.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://kickapps.com&quot; r (nz 1 vz 1 lz 1 oz 1 cz 1 ) &quot;http://www.rsac.org/ratingsv01.html&quot; l gen true for &quot;http://kickapps.com&quot; r (n 0 s 0 v 0 l 0 ))
		</rating>
		<textInput>
			<title>Search</title>
			<description>Search Domain</description>
			<name>q</name>
			<link>http://kickapps.com/search/direct/</link>
		</textInput>
		<!-- skip
		<skipHours>
			<hour>23</hour>
		</skipHours>
		<skipDays>
			<day>Monday</day>
			<day>Wednesday</day>
			<day>Friday</day>
		</skipDays>-->
		<!-- extensions -->


		<!-- channel items -->
		<!-- descriptions should be shorter than 500 char to be polite -->
		<!-- html shoud be stripped or escaped -->
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ A.C.C.C. INSTITUTES PROCEEDINGS AGAINST SEAL-A-FRIDGE PTY LTD ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/398/t/A-C-C-C-INSTITUTES-PROCEEDINGS-AGAINST-SEAL-A-FRIDGE-PTY-LTD.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court in Brisbane against Seal-A-Fridge Pty Ltd and its director,
Mr Nigel Rooney.
<br>
<br>
The ACCC alleges that Seal-A-Fridge engaged in unconscionable conduct towards its franchisees in contravention of section 51AC of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
<br>
The ACCC also alleges that Seal-A-Fridge failed to comply with the Franchising Code of Conduct, which amounts to a contravention of section 51AD of the Act.
<br>
The ACCC alleges that Mr Rooney was knowingly concerned in the contraventions.
<br>
<br>
Seal-A-Fridge is the franchisor of a mobile refrigeration seal replacement business which is run by franchisees located around Australia.
<br>
<br>
The ACCC alleges that Seal-A-Fridge engaged in conduct which was, in all the circumstances, unconscionable within the meaning of section 51AC of the Act
including:
<br>
• unreasonably withholding consent to the transfer of franchises
<br>
•... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/398</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:04:53 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Bakers Delight NOT being pursued by ACCC ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/389/t/Bakers-Delight-NOT-being-pursued-by-ACCC.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The ACCC is not convinced regarding the allegations made against the Bakers Delight, and has decided not to take any further action.
<br>
For a more complete report see <a href="http://www.smartcompany.com.au/Free-Articles/The-Briefing/20080423-Bakers-Delight-franchise-off-the-ACCC-hook.html?source=RSS" target="_blank">Bakers Delight
franchise off the ACCC hook</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/389</guid>
			<pubDate>Thu, 24 Apr 2008 12:00:32 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Video Ezy appears to be keeping up with technology changes and keeping their franchisees in business! ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/385/t/Video-Ezy-appears---keeping---technology-changes--keeping--f.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ There&#39;s nothing worse than a franchisor that stubbornly refuses to see that its product is destined for the technological scrap heap.
<br>
<br>
We&#39;re delighted to see that Video Ezy appears to be &quot;on top of it&quot;, and will be introducing a product delivery method which is more in keeping
with where technology is headed.
<br>
<br>
The header of the news report is as follows: &quot;Video Ezy, one of Australia&#39;s largest movie rental franchises, has selected Ireland&#39;s
DigiSoft.tv&#39;s IPTV delivery platform and set top box middleware to enable the delivery of the Video Ezy Electronic Video Rental service, which will be
rolled out in Video Ezy and Blockbuster stores in A/NZ.&quot;
<br>
<br>
<a target="_blank" href="http://www.crn.com.au/News/73949,video-ezy-goes-with-irish-telco-for-electronic-platform.aspx">For a full report click here</a>
<br>
<br>
<strong>Comments by any franchisees in the DVD rental business? Let&#39;s hear about it.</strong> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/385</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 10:11:20 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Allphones. Another case of misleading & deceptive conduct? ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/384/t/Allphones-Another-case-of-misleading-deceptive-conduct-.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ According to their website &quot;the (Allphones) retail network is now in every Australian State and Territory, with 160 outlets and over 100 franchisees.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<strong>These extracts below from the ACCC News Release dated 27 march 2008.</strong>
<br>
<br>
The ACCC has commenced proceedings in the Federal Court in Sydney against Allphones Retail Pty Limited.
<br>
The ACCC alleges that, in operating this franchise system, Allphones failed to comply with Franchising Code of Conduct and engaged in misleading and deceptive
conduct and unconscionable conduct towards its franchisees in contravention of sections 51AC, 51AD, 52 and 59 of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
<br>
<br>
<strong>What&#39;s Section 51AC?</strong>
<br>
<br>
It applies to conduct which is, &#39;in all the circumstances, unconscionable&#39;. It sets out several factors the court can consider in deciding whether
conduct was unconscionable. They include, but are not limited to:
<br>
<br>
• the relative bargaining... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/384</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:59:52 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Imagine Services made misleading representations... ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/382/t/Imagine-Services-made-misleading-representations-.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ <strong>These are some extracts from a News Release by the ACCC.</strong>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission obtained orders by consent
<br>
<br>
yesterday in the Federal Court at Melbourne against Imagine Essential Services
<br>
<br>
Limited and its founder and former Chief Executive Officer, Mr Richard Evans*, for
<br>
<br>
breaches of the Trade Practices Act 1974.
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
The ACCC alleged Imagine made misleading representations in connection with the
<br>
<br>
sale of licences to operate a system involving agreements which Imagine claimed to
<br>
<br>
have negotiated with essential service suppliers (such as telephony, electricity).
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Under Imagine&#39;s system, licensees would approach businesses with a view to having
<br>
<br>
them take the purported benefit of Imagine&#39;s agreements to obtain the claimed
<br>
<br>
savings (earning commissions when businesses signed up). Small business people
<br>
<br>
invested... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/382</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 01 Apr 2008 07:38:08 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Franchisors raising money to fight franchisees in the High Court. ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/374/t/Franchisors-raising-money--fight-franchisees---High-Court-.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ A recent finding in the Court of Appeal (Ketchell v Master Education Services) held that where a franchisor does not have a written acknowledgment that a
franchisee has received, read and had an opportunity to understand the disclosure document, the franchise agreement is unlawful and unenforceable.
<br>
<br>
This may prove to be a massive problem for franchisors. The Franchise Council of Australia have made a submission in support of the application for leave to
appeal. Why? Because they (FCA) don&#39;t agree with the Supreme Court finding that a technical breach of the type in question should necessarily invalidate
the whole agreement.
<br>
<br>
Watch this space .... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/374</guid>
			<pubDate>Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:10:04 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Franchising Code of Conduct, Amendments - March 08 ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/372/t/Franchising-Code-of-Conduct-Amendments-March-08.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ The Franchising Code of Conduct (the code) has recently been amended. These amendments will come into effect on 1 March 2008. The amendments increase the
obligations of the Franchisor in relation to aspects such as: (<strong>Note: these are incomplete &amp; are summarized, and must not be relied on as
definitive. They are not. The detailed provisions must be studied</strong>):
<br>

<ol>
  <li>The franchisor must provide a copy of the franchise agreement in the form it is to be executed.</li>

  <li>The franchisor must give the franchisee a copy (as well as a summary) of the different agreements that the franchisee is required to enter into under the
  franchise agreement (if applicable).</li>

  <li>The franchisor must disclose any materially relevant facts (such as certain court proceedings) to the franchisee in writing etc.</li>

  <li>A long-form disclosure document must disclose the name of any business (not previously required) that will provide a rebate or financial benefit... ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/372</guid>
			<pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2008 13:54:28 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
		<item>
			<title><![CDATA[ Major Franchise Brands Accused ]]></title>
			<link>http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/371/t/Major-Franchise-Brands-Accused.html</link>
			<description><![CDATA[ Some of the biggest brands in franchising are being accused of fraud, collusion, and unconscionable conduct against their franchisees.
<br>
More than 30 disgruntled former franchisees from Bakers Delight, Lenard&#39;s Chicken, Midas, Michel&#39;s Patisserie, Hungry Jacks and Howard&#39;s Storage
World have joined forces to take on the franchise chains. See the complete article at <a target="_blank" href="http://smallbusiness.theage.com.au/growing/management/major-franchise-brands-accused-900007700.html">Major Franchise Brands Accused</a> ]]></description>

			<!-- optional elements -->
			<author>feeds@kickapps.com (Micmarcmm)</author>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://franchiseesforum.com/topic/371</guid>
			<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:44:23 PST</pubDate>
			<!-- extensions -->

		</item>
    <!-- end items -->

  </channel>
</rss>