May 24, 2012

Negotiating Franchise Sales In California

One of the most misunderstood (and unpopular) aspects of California’s franchise law is its regulation of negotiated sales. Under the law, if a California franchisee has been given a "special deal" that is not part of the franchisor’s standard offering, then the franchisor may be required to disclose the terms of that deal to subsequent California franchisees during the following year.

Of all the states that have franchise sales laws, California is the only one that so heavily regulates negotiations between a franchisor and prospective franchisee. The Federal Trade Commission and other states, to the extent that they do address the possibility of negotiated changes, give franchisors and franchisees wide latitude to negotiate agreements as they see fit. This hands-off policy encourages free negotiation between the parties, which is consistent with the goals of franchise regulations in general.

While the law was originally intended to permit or even facilitate negotiation, it presents business and economic issues that have resulted in this unintended consequence: Many franchisors refuse to negotiate any terms with California franchisees. Because franchisors may be required to disclose all such negotiated terms, they are less likely to provide a particular franchisee a special deal because they fear others will demand the same terms. As a result, instead of protecting California franchisees, the law arguably disadvantaged them by taking the negotiability out of their deals.

If you do want to negotiate with a California prospect, what should you do to comply with the law? If your negotiation is the first one within a twelve-month period, then you do not need to make any special filing or disclosure to your prospect. After the deal has closed, however, you will need to determine whether the negotiated terms, on the whole, confer additional benefits to the franchisee. This is usually the case.

Depending on how you answer the benefits question, you may need to either prepare a "summary description" of the negotiated terms and provide that description to any California prospects, or you may need to file a "Notice of Negotiated Sale of Franchise" with the California Department of Corporations and amend your franchise disclosure document (see my earlier blog post on this subject for more information about this). In any event, because negotiation with a California prospect necessarily implicates the state’s negotiated sales law, you should consult your franchise attorney to ensure that you remain in compliance.

The purpose of the law is to control favoritism among franchisees by attempting to level the playing field between franchisees that are sophisticated enough to negotiate their contracts and those that are not. However, the law can act as a trap, ensnaring a franchisor that is unaware of its requirements. The problem is a significant one because California state administrators are given wide latitude in the statute to assess penalties for violations, no matter how large or small the amount of actual damage caused to franchisees.

© Copyright 2012 Armstrong Teasdale LLP. All rights reserved

About the Author

Partner

Matt Kreutzer serves as Chair of the firm's Franchise, Distribution and Antitrust practice group and is a Certified Specialist in Franchise and Distribution Law by the California State Bar's Board of Legal Specialization. He has spent more than a decade working with individuals and companies on issues relating to franchise law and is well-versed in all stages of the franchise relationship. 

702-678-5070

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.