Research on Rights of Franchise Territory in Franchising Systems in China

中国商业特许经营被特许人商圈权利探析

 

 

As a special business model, franchising has gained immense popularity since its emergence in the United States in the 19th century. In the late 1980s, with American fast-food pioneers KFC and McDonald’s entering into the Chinese market, domestic private enterprises began to explore opening branches through licensing. After that, with the promotion of franchising across various sectors, franchising has entered an unprecedented rapid development phase and made a great contribution to China’s economic development. However, since 2024, there has been a problem with encrypted stores, which implies that there are other stores of the same brand functioning nearby. Since a franchise territory is a prerequisite for franchisees to turn a profit, the franchisor's establishment of encrypted stores poses one of the greatest risks to franchisees’ prospective earnings.

商业特许经营是一种特殊的经营模式，自19世纪兴盛于美国之后，商业特许经营即因其独特优势而备受投资者青睐，风行全球。20世纪80年代末，随着美国快餐先驱肯德基和麦当劳打入中国市场，中国民营企业开始探索以许可的方式开设分店。之后，随着商业特许经营模式在各行各业的推广，特许经营开始进入前所未有的极速发展阶段。然而，自2024年下半年开始，特许经营体系内加密门店问题开始凸显。加密门店是指一家门店周边短距离范围内有其他同品牌在营门店的情况。从理论上来说，一定的经营市场是商业特许经营关系所必备的合同要素。在市场饱和的情境下，特许人开设加密门店成为了被特许人最大的竞争威胁之一。

 

In China, the right of franchise territory has not been explicitly defined by legislation. Scholars have suggested that franchising contracts be regulated as named contracts during the compilation of the Civil Code. In fact, Chapter 16 of the Draft of the Civil Code (Draft) – Contract” (consultation draft) proposed by the Legislative Affairs Commission of the National People’s Congress in March 2018 stipulated franchising contracts as named contracts. However, on August 31, 2018, the draft reviewed and solicited opinions from the public at the fifth meeting of the Standing Committee of the 13th National People’s Congress removed it. In light of this, regarding the issue of franchise territory protection, we need to seek answers from the judiciary.

我国立法未明确规范被特许人商圈权利。基于特许经营“交易重要性”和“给付特殊性”的考量，学者曾建议在《民法典》编纂之际将特许经营合同作为有名合同予以规范。事实上，2018年3月，人大法工委提出的《中华人民共和国民法典各分编（草案）·合同编》（征求意见稿）第十六章确实将商业特许经营合同作为典型合同加以规定。但是，2018年8月31日，十三届全国人大常委会第五次会议所审议并向社会征求意见的草案中又将之剔除。据此，对更广泛的商圈保护问题，只能在司法创制中寻求答案。

In judicial practice, the degree of protection for franchise territory by the courts varies, and even contradictory judgments have occurred in certain situations. In the case of Fu Yanxin vs. Duko Food Technology Co., Ltd., the court clearly pointed out that the business territory protection clause is a core clause in the franchising contract. Violating this clause will directly affect the normal business activities of the franchisee, making it impossible to achieve the contract’s purpose, constituting a fundamental breach of contract. By contrast, in Zhang Haifeng vs. Shanghai Yitong Network Technology Co., Ltd., the court concluded that “franchise encroachment did not necessarily prevent the contract from being performed. Zhang Haifeng also provided no evidence that the franchise store could not continue operations due to this breach. Therefore, it is not a fundamental breach of contract.”

司法实务中法院对被特许人商圈权利的保护程度不一，甚至在特定情形下出现了矛盾判决。例如，在付炎鑫诉都可食品科技有限公司案中，法院明确指出，“商圈保护条款系特许经营合同中的核心条款，对该条款的违反，将直接影响被特许人的正常经营活动，导致合同目的无法实现，构成根本违约。”但是，在章海峰诉上海衣通网络科技有限公司案中，法院认为，“虽然衣通公司有违反商圈保护的违约行为，但该违约行为并不必然导致合同不能继续履行，章海峰也无证据证明加盟店因此违约行为而不能继续经营，故此违约行为不是根本违约行为。”

In the backdrop of legislative silence and judicial inconsistency, rational franchisees can strengthen negotiations on franchise territory protection clauses when signing commercial franchise agreements, clarifying the contractual responsibilities the franchisor should bear for violating franchise territory protection obligations. However, in practice, franchisees, as the vulnerable party, often only have the choice of whether to join the franchise system, with very little possibility of further negotiating specific clauses in the standard contract. In this regard, if a franchise encroachment dispute occurs, the author suggests that whether the franchisor or the franchisee, both should seek legal advice from a professional lawyer team to protect their legitimate rights and interests.

在此立法失语和司法不统一的背景下，理性的被特许人在签订商业特许经营合同时可强化对商圈保护条款的磋商，明确特许人违反商圈保护义务应承担的合同责任，以最大程度降低投资风险。然而，实践中，被特许人作为弱势一方往往只有加入特许经营体系与否的选择权，针对格式合同中的具体条款进一步磋商的可能性极小。对此，如若发生商圈侵犯纠纷，笔者建议：无论是特许人还是被特许人都应向专业律师团队寻求法律意见，以维护自身合法权益。