Arbitration Clauses in Franchise Agreements: Some Comparative Snapshots

Research output: Contribution to conferenceOtherpeer-review


Asymmetric nature of franchise agreements allows the economically stronger party, which is usually the franchisor, to impose certain contractual provisions. These provisions include also arbitration clauses, which can disadvantage the franchisees. The question is whether the arbitration clauses imposed by the franchisors can be enforced and considered valid. This question can be posed at different levels of courts’ scrutiny over arbitral awards. The national courts can be confronted with it during the setting aside proceedings, during the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of the award or when deciding on enforcement of the arbitration agreement itself. American, Canadian, German, Finnish and Swedish courts found that these clauses can and should be, under certain conditions, considered “unconscionable” or “unreasonable” and, consequently, invalid and non-enforceable. Approaches taken by these courts can provide useful lessons for the future franchise related litigations in the Central and Eastern Europe.
Original languageEnglish
Publication statusPublished - 2014
EventThe Milestones of Law in the Area of Central Europe - Častá-Papiernička , Bratislava, Slovakia
Duration: 27 Mar 201429 Mar 2014


ConferenceThe Milestones of Law in the Area of Central Europe


Dive into the research topics of 'Arbitration Clauses in Franchise Agreements: Some Comparative Snapshots'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this