The Tammy Taylor Nails SA franchise is in sizzling water with a franchisee.
Two girls who wished to purchase a franchise are asking the courtroom to provisionally liquidate the corporate, whereas the National Consumer Commission has additionally issued an investigation directive to analyze the franchise.
However, Tammy Taylor Nails SA is opposing the applying, elevating a number of factual disputes and asking the courtroom to dismiss the applying.
Cynthia Buthelezi and Rumbidzai Hove say of their founding affidavit submitted in help of the provisional liquidation utility that they deliberate to open a franchise as companions.
After placing their financial savings collectively, they paid R172 500, half of the required R345 000 of the acquisition worth. The girls say they signed a franchise settlement, however didn’t obtain a replica, even after quite a few requests.
ALSO READ: How to guard your self when shopping for a franchise
Deciding to cancel throughout the cooling-off interval
However, after studying varied information articles and watching a tv programme which made “rather unsavoury comments and disclosures” about Tammy Taylor Nails and its alleged “unethical business practices”.
They weren’t conscious of those allegations and determined to make use of their proper to cancel throughout the cooling-off interval and somewhat cancel the deal.
According to part 7(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, a franchisee can cancel a franchise settlement with out value or penalty inside 10 enterprise days after signing the settlement by giving written discover to the franchisor.
The girls clarify in courtroom papers that two days after they signed, their lawyer, franchise skilled Charl Groenewald of MacRobert Attorneys, contacted the top workplace to cancel the settlement.
In specific, he requested a signed copy of the contract and however an worker’s specific endeavor to take action, Tammy Taylor inexplicably refused to reveal it.
Although the corporate denies of this dialog, the 2 candidates hooked up an precise transcription of this cellphone name to their courtroom papers.
ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails: empty and damaged guarantees
No copy of the Tammy Taylor Nails franchise settlement
MacRobert then forwarded a letter to the corporate to formally cancel and request a replica of the settlement.
Apparently no reply was obtained, besides for varied guarantees that the settlement can be forwarded, but it surely was not despatched.
According to their founding affidavit, the ladies then served a liquidation discover on Tammy Taylor Nails for its failure to repay their cash, however once more obtained no reply.
The inescapable conclusion is that the corporate is financially unable to repay them and so they subsequently utilized for the corporate’s provisional liquidation.
In her answering affidavit Melany Viljoen, the CEO of Tammy Taylor Nails SA, mentioned the corporate is opposing this utility on two grounds, specifically that the settlement was not cancelled in time and that the ladies introduced the applying towards the fallacious firm.
ALSO READ: ‘It’s an African factor’: Tammy Taylor Nails responds to ‘misleading statements’
Did they cancel too late?
Tammy Taylor Nails alleges that the franchise settlement was not cancelled throughout the cooling-off interval and within the answering affidavit offers a date of signature which is completely different to what Buthelezi and Hove allege.
In their responding affidavit, the ladies declare they have been instructed to not put within the date, as they have been instructed that will be finished as soon as they paid the excellent steadiness.
They allege that Tammy Taylor Nails “in an unlawful manner backdated” the franchise settlement.
They additionally submitted Tracker reviews and WhatsApp messages which, on the face of it, present that the settlement couldn’t have been signed on the date that Viljoen says it was.
ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails: Did the Viljoens rip-off South African franchisees?
Which Tammy Taylor Nails firm?
Tammy Taylor Nails states in its answering papers that the franchisees really contracted with Tammy Taylor Nails Franchising No. 81 (Pty) Ltd, as a substitute of Tammy Taylor Nails SA Franchising (Pty) Ltd.
According to Groenewald, a cursory CIPC search reveals that there are seemingly 100 Tammy Taylor firms registered in South Africa with Melany Viljoen as sole director.
Tammy Taylor Nails “inserted into the franchise agreement the registration of a private company that would be the actual franchisor, as opposed to the franchisor we dealt with and paid” and which “was not even in existence until more than a month later,” their courtroom papers learn.
Viljoen additionally denies the allegations within the media, saying the ladies tried to create “atmosphere in this application with irrelevant, unsubstantiated and slanderous information” and asks the courtroom that or not it’s struck for being imprecise, irrelevant and vexatious. Viljoen additionally needs the courtroom to “take a dim view” of their actions.
ALSO READ: Tammy Taylor Nails franchise story goes horribly fallacious for SA homeowners
No proper to a refund at Tammy Taylor Nails
She additionally argues that the settlement, which was filed as a part of the answering affidavit, comprises a clause that reads: “The franchisee shall have no right to any refund of the franchise fee, or any other sum paid to the franchisor under this agreement.”
Therefore, she believes that the corporate just isn’t liable to pay any quantity.
The girls argue of their replying affidavit that Viljoen didn’t provide any proof that the corporate is solvent.
The replying affidavit additionally contained an investigation directive from the National Consumer Commission that signifies that the Commission is investigating 9 different complaints concerning the franchise as effectively.
A date for the listening to has not but been set.
