A ruling from the Midden-Nederland court of October 18, 2023 was recently published, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2023:7737. The franchisee was required to pay various types of fees to the franchisor under the franchise agreement. Does the franchisor have to justify which costs are covered by this?

The franchisee has left invoices for fees unpaid, partly because the franchisor allegedly failed in its obligation to provide information. The franchisor claims payment of those invoices from the court.

It follows from the franchise agreement that the franchisee owes the franchisor three fees:

1) a fee of 5% of the turnover achieved for the granted right to exploit the formula (hereinafter: the franchise fee);

2) a fee of 2.5% of the realized turnover for collective advertising, marketing and promotional activities (hereinafter: the advertising fee) and;

3) a fee of 1% of the realized turnover for the automation (hereinafter: the IT fee);

The court rules that the Franchise Act has an information obligation on the basis of which the franchisor annually informs the franchisee to what extent the surcharges or other financial contributions – which the franchisee has made in the previous financial year in accordance with the franchisor’s requirement – cover the costs or investments that the franchisor intends or has intended to cover with these contributions. See article 7:916 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code. If there is an information obligation for the franchisor regarding payment obligations, but this is not fulfilled by the franchisor, then the court finds that the franchisee is not bound by those payment obligations. The court checks the payment obligations.

Ad 1) With regard to the franchise fee, the franchiser has no obligation to provide information, so the franchisee owes this fee. This is also indicated in legislative history. See House of Representatives, session year 2019–2020, 35 392, no. 6, p 36. It says the following:

“Article 7:916, second paragraph, of the Dutch Civil Code obliges the franchisor to account for the expenditure of certain financial contributions that it has requested from the franchisees, separately from the franchise fee, to cover certain costs or make investments for the benefit of the franchisee. franchise chain.”

Ad 2) With regard to the advertising fee, the franchisor stated at the hearing that it had engaged a professional advertising agency. However, the franchisor has not substantiated what costs were associated with this and what other advertising activities it had done.

Ad 3) The franchisor has also not provided insight into the costs with regard to the IT fee.

The franchise fee is not subject to accountability by the franchisor and is therefore due in this case. With regard to the advertising fee and IT fee, the franchisor may be expected to provide the necessary information. After all, these fees relate to actual costs incurred. Now that the franchisor has not fulfilled the information obligation, the franchisee does not owe the advertising fee and IT fee.

The foregoing shows that it is important which denominator the franchisor gives to a specific compensation. The question is what the judgment in this matter would have been if the franchisor had asked for one (undifferentiated) fee of (5% + 2.5% + 1% =) 8.5% as a franchise fee, with the same collective advertising and automation would have been delivered to the franchisee.

mr. A.W. Dolphijn
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages

Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount on rent” – dated June 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, there may be a right to a rent reduction, according to the Northern Netherlands court.

By Alex Dolphijn|02-06-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article Franchise+ – Franchisees enjoy the same protection as employees and commercial agents with regard to a non-competition clause – dated 7 May 2020 – mr. RCWL Albers

It often happens that, especially by franchisees, the validity of a post-contractual non-compete clause is considered too lightly.

By Remy Albers|07-05-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

The support agreement for the Retail sector in this Corona crisis – dated 15 April 2020 – mr. K. Bastian

On April 10, 2020, the Ministry of Economic Affairs, together with a number of landlords, retailers and banks, reached a support agreement.

Important information for directors of franchisees associations: Online meetings and decision-making in times of corona – dated April 10, 2020 – mr. J. Strong

Emergency law provisions for legally valid decisions without physically meeting within the association structure.

By Jeroen Sterk|10-04-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Unilateral amendment of the franchise agreement by the franchisor allowed? – dated April 7, 2020 – mr. K. Bastian

Is the franchisor allowed to implement certain announced changes/adaptations to the formula on the basis of the franchise agreement agreed between the parties?

By mr. K. Bastiaans|07-04-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , , |
Go to Top