Changing regulations and cooperation conditions of the Franchise Council
Most franchise organizations have a franchise council. Numerous subjects are discussed in this franchise council, such as product innovation, marketing, automation, training, etc. The practice has franchise councils in many shapes and sizes.
A franchise council is usually of an advisory nature and its working method is further regulated in regulations drawn up for this purpose. It also happens that franchise councils function without regulations, often with success in practice.
What to do if the franchisees and the franchisor want to change their common working method? In itself, this can only be done by mutual consent. For example, if franchisees and franchisor are of the joint opinion that decisions of the Franchise Board can also be made outside the meeting, then this is only possible on the basis of consensus and unanimity. This all seems logical and relatively simple. However, things get more complicated when the interests of the individual franchisees who are not on the board are brought into the equation. This is quickly the case with regional representation. If it is decided within the Franchise Council to deal with advice relating to marketing and promotion in a certain way, other than previously regulated in, for example, the Franchise Council regulations, and this affects the individual interests of an individual franchisee who is not represented in the Franchise Council , then the rules can only be changed with the consent of all individual franchisees. This shows that in all cases it is necessary for the franchise council to be of an advisory nature and that individual agreement based on the franchise agreement is important if this actually results in far-reaching changes for an individual franchisee. The individual relationship between the franchisee and the franchisor is therefore binding. The Franchise Council therefore cannot and may not make decisions for fellow franchisees, unless this covers a limited number of subjects that are permitted under competition law.
The same applies to the phenomenon that sometimes occurs over time that the board of the franchise association is (suddenly) presented as the representative representation of the franchisees as being the franchisees sitting in the franchise council. The regulations usually do not provide for this without further ado. Changes to the regulations are then necessary, whereby the individual franchisees must then agree, with explicit observance of the above.
Demarcation of the competence of the franchise council, in particular in relation to the individual franchise agreement, is therefore of eminent importance both in advance and in the interim.
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
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,
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.