Questions are regularly asked in practice with regard to the legal nature of a franchise agreement in relation to agency constructions in particular. It is sometimes wrongly thought that franchising is a form of agency. Although mixed forms may exist, in general this is not the case.

An agent essentially does not act for its own account and risk, but mediates in the sale of products or services for the benefit of its principal. The principal invoices and delivers, and agreements are made between the ultimate uses and the principal and not with the agent. Agency is regulated in Book 7 of the Dutch Civil Code and as such is subject to some mandatory rules. An important rule for practice is that at the end of the agency agreement, the agent is in principle entitled to a goodwill compensation from the principal. The reason for this lies in the fact that the agent cannot generate a business profit from the sales proceeds of the principal’s products. For this he only receives a commission agreed in advance between the parties. In order to compensate for the lack of pure profit from the business, the aforementioned goodwill arrangement has been included in the law.

The opposite of agency is the resale agreement referred to by the general term. In principle, this also includes a franchise agreement. As a customer of the supplier/producer, the reseller buys the products independently and also sells them independently to his own customers. The reseller bears the full risk and full responsibility and can therefore determine his own prices and thus also his own margin and profit, of course within the bandwidth that the market offers. The choice whether, within a particular partnership, agency or resale is preferable cannot be made in general. This is strongly organization and industry dependent. It is true, however, that in principle agency falls outside the scope of competition regulations, as a result of which more far-reaching agreements can be made with regard to, for example, prices and area demarcations than in the case of a resale or franchise construction. In this way, a supplier/producer who uses an agency construction can, in principle, exert more influence on, for example, marketing than in a resale construction.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions

Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.

By Alex Dolphijn|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

The franchisee’s customer base

If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.

Go to Top