Unlike a number of other countries such as Australia or the United States, there are no specific laws in India that apply to franchises. That doesn’t mean there are no laws, simply that there is no central code or text that can be consulted to get your head around the changing face of franchising in that fast moving continent called India.

If you thinking of starting elsewhere, for example Indonesia, Malaysia or even exotic Albania, a good place to start to check out the local laws is the web site with a summary of laws that may be found at this Unidroit guide.

A word of warning, the details do not appear up to date and so you will need to check what changes may have been made since the last update.

Like any area of expertise, if in doubt seek advice, preferably from someone with experience in international trade law and in particular the country you are looking to start your franchise.

Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Tony Burke encouraged those in the industry to adopt this standard as it “will provide greater certainty and credibility for industry and consumers and will be a major step forward in the industry’s development”.

He added that a number of stakeholders had been consulted. “A broad range of organic industry stakeholders were involved in the development of the standard, including organic producers, retailers, consumer groups, certifiers, processors and government agencies,” said Burke.

Standards Australia released the industry standard AS 6000 – 2009 Organic and biodynamic products and MP 100 Procedures for certification of organic and biodynamic products. While the Australian standard is voluntary, it provides an important reference for courts to determine if there has been a breach of the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to organic or biodynamic labelling claims.

AMAG, owner of the registered certification trade marks ‘Product of Australia’, ‘Australian Made’ and ‘Australian Grown’, has submitted to the Review of Food Labelling Law and Policy a recommendation that the term ‘Made in Australia’ may only be used when the food product meets the full criteria set out in the Trade Practices Act.

“There are growing concerns among consumers about where their fresh and processed foods come from. They are anxious about how safe the food they are buying is,” said Ian Harrison, AMAG chief executive.

He indicates the labelling laws are currently inconsistent, with the Food Standards Code requiring some foods such as pork and seafood to carry a country of origin label, while others such as beef and chicken are exempt. “One of the primary purposes of food labelling is to provide consumers with enough information to enable them to make informed choices. Therefore, the rules should be consistent, clear and as simple as possible,” he said.

Under the Trade Practices Act, a food product can legally be described as ‘Australian made’ if it has been substantially transformed in Australia and at least 50 percent of the production costs have been incurred in Australia. Currently, the ACCC’s country of origin guidelines allow a food product to carry a claim like ‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ if it doesn’t meet the full criteria.

However, AMAG want to restrict qualified claims as well. “The term ‘Made in Australia’ should not be allowed to be used in a qualified claim such as ‘Made in Australia from local and imported ingredients’ as shoppers find this unclear. Food products which don’t meet the full criteria set out in the Trade Practices Act should be labelled with an alternative claim, for example ‘packaged in’ or ‘blended in’,” said Harrison.

The AMAG campaign is also undergoing reform to exclude processing such as mixing, blending, seasoning, curing or homogenisation from the definition of ‘substantial transformation’ to ensure their labelled products contain mostly Australia ingredients.

In its submission to the Senate Inquiry into the Trade Practices (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No.2) 2010, AMAG expressed its concerns that the definition of substantial transformation didn’t provide “a clear and objective criterion” to assess claims.

Substantial transformation is currently defined in the Trade Practices Act as “a fundamental change in that country in form, appearance or nature such that the goods existing after the change are new and different goods from those existing before the change”. It forms the basis of AMAG’s criteria for using the AMAG logo with the claim ‘Australian Made’.

However, businesses unsure whether their products can be classified as substantially transformed in Australia are currently unable to obtain a clear ruling from the ACCC or any other body, unless the matter is dealt with in a court of law.

“A new approach to the concept of substantial transformation is essential in order to reduce confusion on the part of both business and consumers,” AMAG chief executive Ian Harrison said.

Under the AMAG proposal manufacturers could apply for and receive a ruling on the matter. It also suggested that alternative approaches to evaluating substantial transformation, such as the Change of Tariff Classification (CTC) method used in Free Trade Agreements, should be considered.

The Bill proposes to insert definitions for ‘Australian Grown’ into the country of origin provisions. AMAG supports this but is concerned the criteria allow for as little as 50 percent by weight, rather than 90 percent prescribed in the AMAG rules to use the ‘Australian Grown’ logo.

“This Bill before Parliament is an opportunity for significant improvements to the law relating to country of origin labelling in this country – an opportunity which is not likely to come again in the near future,” said Harrison.

“AMAG believes that, rather than adopt a hasty, cut-and-paste approach to the new legislation, it is important to take the time to consider what has and hasn’t worked under the current regime, and take steps to rectify any problem areas identified.”

Hu was sentenced to 10 years in prison for accepting bribes and stealing commercial secrets in a closed court after a three-day trial in Shanghai. The Australian government labelled the sentence length “harsh” and questioned the secret nature of the trial.

“After prudent consideration, Stern Hu decided not to appeal. He made the decision after consulting his closest family and friends and us, his lawyers, as well,” said attorney Jin Chunqing.

Hu’s three Chinese co-defendants will, however, appeal their respective sentences, which ranged from seven- to 14-year prison terms.

The Department for Foreign Affairs indicated that it respected Hu’s decision not to appeal. “It has been a matter for Stern Hu and his lawyers. We will continue to provide Mr Hu with all consular assistance.”

Ministry spokesperson Yao Jian said his department had not yet received a formal indication of Google’s exit. He reiterated that all foreign companies were obliged to abide by Chinese laws.

“Foreign investors should have confidence in China’s market as China has the world’s biggest internet population,” said Yao, adding: “Any decision by Google to withdraw from China will not affect Sino-US trade relations.”

The US government is practising a ‘wait and see’ approach to the stand-off, although senior White House economic adviser Lawrence Summers remarked: “It seems to me that the principles that Google is trying to uphold are not just important in a moral or rights framework, but are also of very considerable economic importance.”

Minster for Trade Simon Crean, acting Minister for Foreign Affairs, said while China was due to set a date, it was possible for them to legally postpone the process.

“What is happening in this case is accordance with Chinese law. There is the potential for a further extension. We have been kept informed, we have had consular access, we have made vigorous and active representations on all occasions privately in our discussions with the Chinese,” he said in an interview on the ABC’s AM program.

Australia are anxious for this issue to proceed and have urged expediency, said Crean. “I think we just have to let this run its course. We’ve consistently said we would want it dealt with expeditiously and transparently and we continue to persist with that.”

The Australian Centre for Commercial International Arbitration (ACICA), the Institute of Arbitrators & Mediators Australia (IAMA) and the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators Australia (CIArb) will join forces to promote Australia as an independent business arbitration destination after signing a tripartisan agreement at the weekend.

“It is a national approach to a global opportunity that is in the national interest,” said ACICA president, Professor Doug Jones.

The three believe arbitration could be as lucrative an export as education, which earns Australia billions of dollars per year.

“Eighty percent of world trade is now conducted by sea. Supporting a uniform framework that clarifies the rights and responsibilities of marine cargo carriers and shippers promotes international trade and is in turn good for Australia,” said Stuart Hetherington, partner at Colin Biggers & Paisley lawyers.

More than 20 nations, representing 25 percent of world trade by volume, have signed the United Nations (UN) Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea, also known as the ‘Rotterdam Rules’. Signatories include Denmark, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Switzerland and the USA.

“Australia’s regime has been grafted on to the original archaic rules which hark back to a time when cargo was shipped in bags or boxes rather than containers, and communication technology was still in its infancy. It is generally considered out of date and cumbersome,” said Hetherington.

Main changes in the Rotterdam rules:

• Extends the period when carriers are responsible for goods. The period is from when cargo is received by the carrier to when it is delivered.
• Contemplates e-commerce and aims to treat paper and electronic documents consistently.
• Extends the carrier’s obligation to provide a properly crewed, equipped and seaworthy ship and to keep holds fit for cargo throughout the sea voyage.
• Increases the amount by which carriers can limit their liability to 875 units of account per package or shipping unit or three units of account per kilogram of gross weight.
• Removes the ‘nautical fault defence’ to enable carriers to be liable for the negligent navigation or management of the ship.
• Extends the time to commence legal action to two years from the day the goods were delivered or should have been delivered.
• Allows parties to ‘volume’ contracts (contracts that provide for the carriage of a specified quantity of goods in a series of shipments during an agreed period) to ‘opt out’ of much of the convention’s liability regime.

In 2005, it came to light that AWB had made payments under the guise of transport fees to Saddam Hussein’s regime to secure lucrative wheat supply contracts, against the rules of United Nations sanctions.

Shareholders’ solicitor Ben Slade, of law firm Maurice Blackburn, said Downer would be called upon “to refute the suggestion AWB is making that the government knew that kickbacks were being paid” after AWB lawyers revealed that their defence would centre on the Howard government’s knowledge of the fees.

The investors have until November 20 to subpoena Downer. The suit, reportedly worth $100 million, is scheduled to begin on November 30 and will argue that the investors suffered financial losses when a parliamentary inquiry exposed the illegal payments.