Suchergebnisse

Purpose: This study explores the termination of franchise agreement in Jordan. The study discusses the grounds to terminate the franchise agreement by each party whether franchiser or franchisee. Regulating the franchise sector by a specific act minimizes unfair termination and helps strengthen the franchise sector in Jordan. Design/methodology/approach: This study is qualitative. Eleven in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with the relevant parties involved in franchise agreements as well as legislatures. The analysis was thematically conducted and accordingly supported by sufficient excerpts.Findings: The study found several grounds to terminate the franchise agreement by the parties involved. Emphatically, the participants were unanimous regarding the breach of the contract terms and conditions as the main ground to terminate the franchise agreement.Research limitations: The research participants were franchisors, franchisees and parliamentarians in Jordan. Additionally, the data collection constrained by funds paucity and difficulties in securing appointments with the participants who were always busy and not available. Two of the participant answered the interview questions by filling up the questions instead of face to face and recorded interview.Practical implications: The study suggests that the termination grounds of the franchise agreement need to be more specific and limited to certain provisions which should be provided by specific act for this purpose. Otherwise the unfair termination whether by the franchisers or franchisees will continue. Originality/value: Even though franchise agreement literature s are aplenty, this study, however, is the first attempt at qualitatively exploring in-depth regarding the termination grounds for the franchise agreement in Jordan.Paper type: Research Paper

Abstract
While the agreement for the termination of the intra-European Union (EU) bilateral investment treaties (bit s) is moving the intricate question of intra-EU investment arbitration closer to solution, the retroactive effects of the agreement may prove problematic from the viewpoint of international law. It is argued in the article that the underlying reason for this is the different understandings under the EU law perspective and the international law perspective on whether the intra-EU bit s have been inapplicable in the light of international treaty law. Furthermore, the article discusses the proceedings regarding intra-EU awards in national courts in the aftermath of the termination agreement, concluding that there is notable uncertainty looming over the faith of the awards. Finally, an overview is taken on the termination of the bit s in the Member States, which did not sign the termination agreement, discussing the possible consequences of the opt-out.

Examines minor and intermediate armed conflicts, and war in 101 instances in 68 locations in Europe, the Middle East, Asia, Africa, and Latin America, and classifies incompatibilities at the base of conflict, and types of termination of fighting.

A total of 101 armed conflicts have been recorded for the eight post-Cold War years 1989-96. Only six were interstate conflicts. In 1996 there were two such conflicts. For most regions there was a decline in the number of conflicts, with the exception of Africa. Nineteen peace agreements were in place by the end of 1996, historically a high number. Most of these agreements were concluded over conflicts in Africa. Asia and the Middle East showed the lowest propensity to terminate conflicts.

The purpose of this study is to find out the legal efforts to protect franchisees against termination of employment agreements. The research method used is the dualism of normative-empirical legal research whereby research uses normative-empirical legal case studies in the form of legal behavioral products. The approach used is a juridical approach and analytical technique using qualitative analytical methods. The results showed that the form of legal protection against franchisees in agreements with franchisees is contained in the Regulation of the Minister of Trade Number: 12/MDAG/Per/3/2006, in Article 7 that the term of the franchise agreement (franchising) is valid for at least 5 years. These terms provide legal protection to the franchisor as the franchisor, as such the franchisor cannot terminate the agreement at any time or at any time. It is necessary to immediately regulate regulations that directly or indirectly concern franchise business practices made in the form of legislation, such as the Antitrust or Antitrust Act and the current Business Competition Act.

N. v S LLC

This article examines the fate of preferential trade agreements (PTAs) concluded between the United Kingdom (UK), the European Union (EU) and third States after Brexit. It examines EU-only and mixed PTAs separately. Regarding mixed PTAs, it is argued that Brexit will not lead to their automatic termination. The UK will possess all rights and obligations under these agreements, unless they contain provisions limiting their scope, such as respective powers and territorial application clauses, often found in bilateral mixed PTAs. The effect of the former is that the UK will remain Party to mixed PTAs but will not fall within the personal scope of rights and obligations thereunder. This situation gives rise to a series of questions, among others, whether the UK will be able to terminate the treaties and whether survival clauses will be triggered. It is argued that the UK will be able to rely on PTAs' termination provisions and potentially Article 62 VCLT (fundamental change in circumstances), and that survival clauses are also triggered by permanent de facto termination events. Regarding EU-only treaties, it is argued the UK will be neither bound thereby under international law nor obliged to act in conformity with them under European law.