With respect to those arrangements specifically described in the proviso contained in the definition, an independently owned retail or service establishment will not be considered to be other than a separate and distinct enterprise, if other arrangements the establishment makes do not have the effect of bringing the establishment within a larger enterprise. Whether or not other arrangements have such an effect will necessarily depend upon all the facts. The Senate Report makes the following observations with respect to this:
Thus the mere fact that a group of independently owned and operated stores join together to combine their purchasing activities or to run combined advertising will not for these reasons mean that their activities are performed through unified operation or common control and they will not for these reasons be considered a part of the same “enterprise.” This is also the case in food retailing because of the great extent to which local independent food store operators have joined together in many phases of their business. While maintaining their stores as independently owned units, they have affiliated together not just for the purchasing of merchandise, but also for providing numerous other services such as (1) central warehousing; (2) advertising; (3) sales promotions; (4) managerial advice; (5) store engineering; (6) accounting systems; (7) site locations; and (8) hospitalization and life insurance protection. (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 42.)
The report continues with the following observations:
Whether such arrangements bring the establishment within the franchisor's, lessor's, or grantor's “enterprise” is a question to be determined on all the facts. The facts may show that the arrangements reserve the necessary right of control in the grantor or unify the operations among the separate “franchised” establishments so as to create an economic unity of related activities for a common business purpose. In that case, the “franchised” establishment will be considered a part of the same “enterprise.” For example, whether a franchise, lease, or other contractual arrangement between a distributor and a retail dealer has the effect of bringing the dealer's establishments within the enterprise of the distributor will depend upon the terms of the agreements and the related facts concerning the relationship between the parties.
There may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases. The key in each case may be found in the answer to the question, “Who receives the profits, suffers the losses, sets the wages and working conditions of employees, or otherwise manages the business in those respects which are the common attributes of an independent businessman operating a business for profit?”
For instance, a bona fide independent automobile dealer will not be considered a part of the enterprise of the automobile manufacturer or of the distributor. Likewise, the same result will also obtain with respect to the independent components of a shopping center.
In all of these cases if it is found on the basis of all the facts and circumstances that the arrangements are so restrictive as to products, prices, profits, or management as to deny the “franchised” establishment the essential prerogatives of the ordinary independent businessman, the establishment, the dealer, or concessionaire will be considered an integral part of the related activities of the enterprise which grants the franchise, right, or concession. (S. Rept. 145, 87th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 42.)
Thus, there may be a number of different types of arrangements established in such cases, and the determination as to whether the arrangements create a larger “enterprise” will necessarily depend on all the facts. Some arrangements which do not create a larger enterprise and some which do are discussed in §§ 779.230 through 779.235.