Search Publication

Vol 3 (2005) - Issue 5

Annual Canadian case law and legislative update

Lawrence M. Weinberg and Geoffrey B. Shaw,1 Cassels Brock & Blackwell LLP, Toronto

Case law and legislative updates in this annual review are considered first as dealt with in Ontario, then in the other Provinces and finally in the Federal Laws. Areas discussed include disclosure, employment standards, breach of contract, class actions, good faith and fair dealing, competition, multiple franchisees as plaintiffs and income tax.

New competition legislation in Singapore

Gillian Lee, Khattar Wong, Singapore

This article provides an overview and preliminary commentary on the provisions of Singapore’s new Competition Act, and the author concludes that Singapore companies should now set up effective competition law policies involving reviewing agreements and practices to determine the risk of infringement. Notwithstanding that multi-national companies are probably already complying with competition laws in their base countries, the author notes that they should be aware of local deviations and follow the guidelines issued by the Commission once available.

Franchising and e-commerce in Ireland

Emma Keavney, Mason Hayes & Curran, Dublin

The author sets out a summary of the parameters within which a franchise may engage in e-commerce in, or from, Ireland.

EU Report October 2005

James Webber, Solicitor, Eversheds LLP, Brussels

Two competition cases and the Commission’s support of the development of more effective private enforcement of anti-trust rules in the EU are the focus of this month’s EU report.

US Report October 2005

Lauren J. Murov and Michael G. Brennan, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary US LLP, Chicago

In the recent case of RHC, LLC v. Quizno’s Franchising, LLC, Business Franchise Guide, two franchisees brought suit against Quizno’s when their Quizno’s stores failed, allegedly because of their proximity to other Quizno’s stores. The Colorado district court held that Quizno’s owed its franchisees no duties with respect to site selection and that, therefore, Quizno’s was not liable for the failure of the franchisees’ stores. In another recent case, it was held that a hotel franchisor was not vicariously liable for the injuries of a guest at the franchisee’s hotel.