DIFFERENTIATION OF FRANCHISING AGREEMENT FROM ADJACENT CONTRACTS
( Pp. 54-59)

With the adoption and entry into force of the Civil Code 2 revealed that Chapter 54 of Civil Code leaves open a number of issues, of which one of the most important is the question of the relationship of a commercial concession (franchise) with close to the legal nature of the license agreement, partnership agreement, contract and commission agency agreement, Distribution agreement, investment contract. On the pages of scientific publications continues active controversy, which also concerns the definition, the legal nature and characteristics of the commercial concession agreement as an institution of civil law. Lack of clarity in these criteria leads to considerable difficulties in the practical application of the current legislation, which, in turn, requires its improvement through changes and additions. In the article the author's choice is seen as the ultimate goal to address the issue of compliance with the existing legislation currently existing concept of franchise business model franchise agreement. To achieve the goal of the author used methods of statistical analysis, abstraction and Comparative Law. The article from the study of existing theoretical approaches by applying these methods of analysis of civil law governing the relationship of the parties under the contract of commercial concession and allied contracts, defined the legal nature and characteristics of the commercial concession agreement as an institution of civil law. The problems of enforcement practices. As a conclusion, the author suggested that there is an indication of the independence of the commercial concession agreement does not prove that it should be considered as a separate type of contract, have argued that an update addressing adequate contractual design exclusive rights to results of intellectual activity and transition to the innovative stage of economic development. As a result, the basic requirements for the improvement of the legal regulation of relations arising from the contract of commercial concession. The novelty of the author's research, presented in this article, is seen in the extension of the original concrete proposal for taking into account a number of principles in the formation of the new legislation on franchising, in the form of a special law, namely excluding the continuity conditions of the contract of commercial concession, which provides for the use of the system of exclusive rights and organizational conditions (food and organizational know-how) to achieve a balance private and public interests (interests of business, society and the state); accounting "best practices" regulation of franchising abroad, in both developed and developing countries for adaptation of this experiment Russian practice. Among the possible social impact accounting legislator in the development and adoption of normative legal acts of the proposals submitted by the author, seen significant development of relations to be signed by the franchise contract, the distribution of which is highly in demand in Russia, but now is too slow. Analysis itself, obtained by the author and the conclusions he proposed approaches can serve as a basis for further scientific discussion, and become part of the Russian legal doctrine.

Demicheva E.A., (2013), DIFFERENTIATION OF FRANCHISING AGREEMENT FROM ADJACENT CONTRACTS. Business in Law, 6 => 54-59.

Bobkov S.A. Pravovoe regulirovanie kommercheskoy kontsessii v Rossiyskoy Federatsii: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. M., 2004. 207 s.
Borodina ZH.N. Kommercheskaya kontsessiya kak institut grazhdanskogo prava // Vestnik TISBI. 2004. № 1. URL:www.law.edu.ru. (data obrashcheniya 10.10.2013)
Gelashvili E.V. Dogovor kommercheskoy kontsessii: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. Stavropol , 2007. 171 s.
Grazhdanskoe i torgovoe pravo kapitalisticheskikh gosudarstv. M.: Mezhdunar. otnosh., 1992. S. 394.
Grazhdanskoe pravo: V 2 t. Tom 2. Polutom I: Uchebnik. M.: Izdatel stvo BEK, 2000. S.627.
Dogovory v predprinimatel skoy deyatel nosti / Pavlodskiy E.A., Levshina T.L., Belyaeva O.A., Vitryanskiy V.V., Gasnikov K.D. M.: Izd.: Statut, 2008. 509 s.
Em V.S., Kozlova N.V. Dogovor prostogo tovarishchestva // Zakonodatel stvo. 2000. № 1. S. 8.
Margolin A.M. Investitsii. M.: Izd-vo RAGS, 2006. S.20.
Materialy seminara, organizovannogo SHkoloy biznesa Statut , Moskva. URL: www.statut.ru. (data obrashcheniya 12.11.2013)
O nekotorykh voprosakh razresheniya sporov, voznikayushchikh iz dogovorov po povodu nedvizhimosti, kotoraya budet sozdana ili priobretena v budushchem: postanovlenie Plenuma VAS RF ot 11.07.2011 g. № 54.
Ob investitsionnoy deyatel nosti v Rossiyskoy Federatsii, osushchestvlyaemoy v forme kapital nykh vlozheniy : federal nyy zakon ot 25.02.1999 g. № 39-FZ (red. ot 12.12.2011) // SZ RF. 1999. № 9, st. 1096.
Obyazatel stvennoe pravo. T.4. M.: Volters Kluver, 2008.
Ozhegov S.I., SHvedova N.YU. Tolkovyy slovar russkogo yazyka. URL: http://ozhegov-online.ru/letter/10/3/ (data obrashcheniya 03.12.2013).
Opredelenie Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 03.12.2012 g. № VAS-13096/12. // URL:www.ras.arbitr.ru/ (data obrashcheniya: 03.12.2013).
Opredelenie Vysshego Arbitrazhnogo Suda Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 27.09.2013 g. № VAS-10862/13.
Orlova O.A. Mesto i rol dogovora kommercheskoy kontsessii v sisteme grazhdansko-pravovykh dogovorov // Zakonodatel stvo i ekonomika. 2003. № 6.
Postanovlenie Devyatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 12.11.2013 g. № 09AP-35161/2013-GK.
Postanovlenie Pyatogo arbitrazhnogo apellyatsionnogo suda ot 26.11.2013 g. № A51-11068/2012. URL: www.ras.arbitr.ru/. (data obrashcheniya 2.12.2013)
Postanovlenie Suda po intellektual nym pravam ot 04.12.2013 g. po delu № A40-160777/2012. URL:www.ras.arbitr.ru/. (data obrashcheniya 05.12.2013).
Raynikov A.S. Dogovor kommercheskoy kontsessii. M.: Statut, 2009. 199 s.
Reshenie Arbitrazhnogo suda CHelyabinskoy oblasti ot 15.11.2013 g. po delu № A76-2739/2013. www.ras.arbitr.ru/ (data obrashcheniya 07.12.2013).
Rykova I. Osobennosti natsional nogo franchayzinga // Biznes-advokat. 2002. № 11. S. 12.
Sistematizatsiya khozyaystvennogo zakonodatel stva. M. YUrid. lit., 1971. 206 s.
Sokolov S.A. Strategiya i praktika vedeniya peregovorov pri torgovle litsenziyami i nou-khau. T.1. M.: INITS Rospatenta, 1998. S.30-32.
Sosna S.A., Vasil eva E.N. Franchayzing. Kommercheskaya kontsessiya. M.: IKTS quot;Akademkniga quot;, 2005. 375 s.
Strategiya innovatsionnogo razvitiya Rossiyskoy Federatsii na period do 2020 goda: rasporyazhenie Pravitel stva Rossiyskoy Federatsii ot 08.12.2011 g. № 2227-r // SZ RF. 2012. № 1, S. 216.
SHul ga D.V. Regulirovanie dogovora kommercheskoy kontsessii (franchayzinga) v grazhdanskom prave Rossii: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. Volgograd, 2005. 169 s.
YUshchenko N.A. Pravovoe regulirovanie kommercheskoy kontsessii i franchayzinga v Rossii i za rubezhom: dis. kand. yurid. nauk. Kazan , 2009. 228 s.
Milenkovic T. The Main Directions in Comparative Franchising Regulation Unidroit Initiative and its Influence // European Research Studies. 2010. Vol. XIII, Issue (1). rr. 103-118.
UNIDROIT Guide to International Master Franchise Arrangements. 2-nd ed. Rome: The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) Via Panisperna, 2007. pp: 28 00184.

franchising, the contract of the commercial concession, license agreement, simple partnership agreement, Commission agreement, Agency agreement, distribution agreement, investment agreement, goal, the subject, object.