加盟契約，被讚揚為符合時代的行銷策略，惟眾多冠上「加盟」旗號的加盟系統中，並不完全符合加盟契約的內涵，所以應區別加盟契約 是否為加盟主與真正獨立的加盟店所締結。文中首先簡述加盟契約的意義及其內涵，並就德國學者Martinek針對德國加盟契約實務所歸納分析 的加盟類型，限縮以加盟店受加盟主最強勢控制的隸屬加盟作為探討標的核心，因為此類型加盟店受加盟主全面強勢的控制，或不具備與加盟 主較對等的契約對話權的弱勢地位，最需要探討加盟主所加諸於加盟店的契約義務，是否全部有法律上的效力。 加盟契約的約定內容除了民法之外，更重要的是涉及競爭法的規定，礙於牽涉範圍廣大及能力、允許時間所限，所以探討範圍縮限於至 2001年以前的競爭法法院判決，亦即德國限制競爭防止法GWB/Kartellrecht和歐洲共同體條約第八十一條的規定，以及歐盟執委會所制定的第 2790／1999號垂直協議團體除外規則，藉由分析判決歸納加盟契約約定內容有關加盟主對加盟店限制轉售價格、限制、保密know-how專有技術 義務、獨家購買、不為競業義務等之合法範圍。

Franchise Agreement is one of modern distribution methods. However, not every named Franchise Agreement is compatible with legal analysis. According to doctrine of Martinek is this study focus on subordinations-franchising. It is acknowledged that franchise agreement does not in itself interfere with competition since the Pronuptia judgment of European court. The provisions of franchise agreement: which are strictly necessary for function of the system and price recommendation which the franchisor makes to franchisee do not constitute restriction of the purpose of Article 81 (1) of the Treaty. However, provisions which share markets between the franchisor and the franchisees or between franchisees constitute restrictions of the Article 81 (1). Regulation Nr. 2790/1999 EEC for vertical agreement maintain this principle, further more is to emphasize the market power of the franchise system. In respect of European Competition Law is franchise agreement positive acknowledged.