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

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top