The tied franchisee
Sometimes we talk about a tied franchisee. It is important for starting franchisees to determine whether, and to what extent, the franchisee is bound before signing the franchise agreement. In short, these are provisions that may hinder the franchisee if he wishes to continue operations after the end of the franchise agreement. Some examples of this are mentioned in this contribution.
Especially in retail, a branch is an important part of the collaboration between franchisor and franchisee. The intention is to make the location an attraction for (potential) customers. In this way, regular customers can be created and the importance of the location increases. “Traffic” is then generated.
It is quite conceivable that a franchisor wants to maintain a good location for the chain of franchise stores. The potential customers know the point and the formula that is operated there. On the other hand, after the end of the franchise agreement, a franchisee may want to continue operating the relevant location under its own name or another formula. He will also want to (continue to) benefit from the accumulated traffic.
Some franchise agreements contain agreements with which the franchisor tries to maintain the location for the chain of the franchise formula. One then speaks of a “tied” franchisee. After all, the franchisee is, as it were, “stuck” to the formula and cannot simply continue operations at the location in question at will without the franchise formula. Such binding agreements could be, for example, the following:
– A post-contractual non-competition clause: The franchisee may not operate competing activities (at or near the location) after the termination of the franchise agreement;
– An obligation of the franchisee to offer: The franchisee must offer the company for sale to the franchisor in the event of a proposed cessation or sale of the operation;
– A purchase option for the franchisor: The franchisor has the right to buy the company from the franchisee after the franchise agreement expires;
– The franchisee rents the location from the franchisor, so that the franchisor, as landlord, sometimes has control over who or what happens in the rented property.
There are many variations on methods in which the franchisor can bind the franchisee. Not all bonds by the franchisor are valid. Sometimes there may be a conflict with competition law or the Franchise Act.
It is advisable to consider in advance as much as possible how any binding agreement works, to what extent it is valid and whether it is necessary to make other or alternative agreements.
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
Franchisor fails by invoking a non-compete clause
Although a non-compete clause is validly formulated in a franchise agreement, a situation may arise that is so diffuse that the franchisor cannot invoke it.
Acquisitions and Franchise Interest
It will not have escaped anyone's attention, certainly in the last year it can only be concluded that the Dutch economy is once again on the rise.
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).