Company Policy and Franchise Interest

Every organization of any importance sets policy goals for itself. This applies to public organisations, but of course also to commercial organisations. A franchise organization also periodically takes into account its position in relation to the competition and periodically determines in which direction it wishes to develop in the short, medium and long term. franchising policy.

Without the periodic review of policy described above, every organization, including a franchise organization, would become rudderless and would, in most cases, have few opportunities in the commercial playing field. Policy is therefore a necessary element in business operations. Although policy-making and implementation are in principle primarily commercial considerations, these concepts do have a legal component in franchise relationships. Where a “traditional” company mainly serves its own interests in its policy-making, and may for example have to deal with personnel changes (shrinkage/growth), a franchisor must take the interests of its franchisees into account when formulating policy. . In practice, this is sometimes forgotten. A recent concrete example of this is an organization that traditionally operated in the luxury segment of a certain industry. The stores of the franchisees were geared to this: not too large in size, luxuriously furnished and in locations that did not directly have the primary goal of reaching the general public. The method of advertising within this organization was also aimed at reaching a small, but select target group.

About two years ago, the franchise organization involved decided that it was in line with its policy to create volume growth. With this, the organization and its franchisees should therefore focus on a larger audience. The shops had to become larger and in many cases moved to locations that would more easily reach a larger audience, for example in shopping streets. Substantial investments were required from the franchisees in this context in order to be able to participate in this policy change. And thus it happened. Less than a year and a half later, however, the same franchise organization decided to return to the old model and, in fact, to focus even more on the luxury premium segment than before. All this was communicated to the franchisees, without them being able to do much about it. The result was that the franchisees in this case saw their respective turnovers and results plummet, while they had recently taken on substantial investment obligations. Several franchisees have ended up deep in the red. The franchisees involved blame this directly on what they consider to be the floundering policy of their franchisor. It is possible that the matter will lead to a substantial liability claim on the part of the franchisor involved.
The message of the above is that a franchise organization is of course free to shape its own future and to formulate a policy in this regard. However, extra care is required in this regard, since in many cases the franchisees are directly dependent on the policy pursued by the franchisor. Incorrect or careless application thereof can lead to serious business economic problems, as described above. In the event of important course changes within franchise relationships, it is therefore strongly recommended that these be shaped in direct consultation with the franchisees, whether or not in the form of a franchise council, and that the interests of the franchisees are always given serious consideration in this regard.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Goodwill at end of franchise agreement

In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the

Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee

An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the

Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor

In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee

Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement

On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor

Go to Top