Restriction on the freedom of contract

Distribution and franchise agreements are almost always concluded between parties having a different negotiating power. Thus, the relationship between supplier and distributor, and especially that between franchisor and franchisee, is generally characterised by an imbalance between the parties. Lawmakers and courts tend to deal with this issue by protecting in various ways the “weaker” parties against possible abuses of their counterparts. This “rebalancing” of the respective positions can be made by imposing protective rules regarding specific situations (such as rules providing minimum terms for termination), or through the recourse to more general rules (like good faith or abuse of economic dependence) applied by the courts (or other authorities) to specific situations of imbalance. The material impact of this protective trend varies substantially from country to country, due to the difference of legal rules and principles in force. Thus, common law courts tend to privilege the strict observance of the provisions agreed between the parties, while civil law courts are more inclined to “correct” or annul unbalanced clauses.
The list of cases below refers to judgments and decisions of Courts and Public Authorities in different countries (e.g., Canada, France, Italy, UK, USA).
Each list includes links to the relevant texts of the judgments/decisions.