Acquisition of inventory and goods

Many franchise agreements, particularly where retail situations are concerned, contain one or more clauses regarding the return and/or takeover of goods and inventory upon termination of the franchise agreement. These clauses often turn out to be quite different in nature. Some terms assume a completely non-binding position on the part of the franchisor, both with regard to the possibility of taking back goods and/or inventory, and with regard to the determination of prices with regard to goods and/or inventory. Other stipulations are based on a mandatory return, linked to market prices for goods and inventory. There are also clauses obliging the franchisor to take back goods and inventory at market prices for the goods, less obsolete stock and the value of the inventory less relevant depreciation. The latter stipulations are most closely related to the franchisee’s generally existing financial obligations towards the bank in practice. The franchisor is then involved in this in relation to the relevant financing arrangement and then agrees on such an arrangement in accordance with such arrangement. This arrangement does not necessarily have to be included in the franchise agreement, but can also be arranged by the parties in underlying financing agreements. However, it is not uncommon for such an obligation to be included in the franchise agreement. After all, it concerns an important obligation of the franchisor and franchisee towards each other.

Franchisor and franchisee would be wise to realize in advance what a possible buy-back arrangement means in practice. In this way, it is prevented that any open-ended arrangements can arise that prove to be insufficiently safeguarding the interests of either the franchisor, the franchisee, or both at the time of invocation.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-01-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.

By Alex Dolphijn|12-11-2019|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.

Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans

It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.

By mr. K. Bastiaans|14-10-2019|Categories: Franchise Knowledge Center / National Franchise and Formula Letter Publications|
Go to Top