The franchiser must assume damage without performing the responsibility of information disclosure

基本案情：

 申请人与被申请人签订了一份特许经营合同，被申请人许可申请人使用其商标，被申请人向申请人提供经营加盟店的运营经验和运营服务，要求申请人必须购买其提供的原材料。由于原材料质次价高，运营服务的人员更换频繁，导致申请人经营不善。其后申请人又发现，被许可使用的商标不属于被申请人而是属于被申请人的投资人，且被申请人未按照特许经营条例的要求进行备案和信息披露，不符合“两店一年”的要求。据此，申请人提出仲裁申请，要求解除合同并主张赔偿损失。

Basic case：

The applicant negotiated a contract to permit usage of trademark with the respondent on April 22th 2022. The fee of franchising is worth 24800 yuan, the warrant of performance of the contract is worth 3000 yuan. The applicant paid 27800 yuan to the respondent on the same day. The applicant still negotiated a contract for supplying and a contract for operation service with the third party designated and operated by the respondent(hereinafter referred as to the third party) accompanying with the franchise agreement negotiation.

The trademark franchised  belongs to the inventor of the respondent rather than the respondent. The respondent hadn’t been consistent with the conditions stipulated by the regulation on operation of franchise that the franchiser at least had operated two stores over one year until he operated franchise business while he negotiated the permitting usage contract with the applicant.

The applicant operated his business on June 18th 2022, then the applicant met many matters in the course of operation because of the respondent’s reason. The quality of food material is bad, the price of food material is far higher, the operation workers were alternated frequently which leaded to a bad quality of service.

The applicant had to stop his business on September 7th 2022 because the above factors leaded that he lost much money . The applicant brought an arbitration to the board of arbitration against the respondent for revoking the contract, returning properties and compensation of damage.

不利因素：

        1.被申请人是依据特许经营合同的规定向申请人收取费用，出售原材料。

        2.申请人声称的运营问题系双方正常的信息沟通交流问题，不应因此而归责于被申请人。

        3.运营服务人员的更换是被申请人正常的人员调配安排，并不会影响到申请人的经营。

Unfavorable factors：

1. The respondent charged fees from the applicant in according with the contract.

2. The problems asserted fell within normal information exchanged by each other.

3. The alternation of worker was an normal arrangement and didn’t influenced the business of the applicant.

抗辩思路：

        1.被申请人没有履行法定的信息披露义务，没有依法办理备案手续。

        2.更换运维人员是正常的，但频繁更换运维人员是不正常的。

        3.被申请人不符合“两店一年”的法律规定。

Coping strategies：

1. The respondent didn’t fulfilled the liability of information disclosure and didn’t registered his franchise behavior to relative industrial and commercial department.

2. The alternation of employee is normal, but the frequent alternation of employee isn’t normal.

3.The respondent hadn’t operated two stores over one year until the respondent franchised the applicant to operate the business which violated laws.

判决结果：

        双方签订了调解协议，被申请人赔偿申请人部分损失。

Judgement or consequence：

They negotiated a mediation agreement that the respondent should repay 23000 yuan to the applicant during the arbitration.