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

Article in Entrance: “Rentals”

“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”

No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising

On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.

Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor

On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.

Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?

On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores

Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed

On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee

Go to Top