Situations regularly occur in practice in which a franchisee, as it is so nicely called, ceases to pay franchise fee, supplies and sometimes even rent to his franchisor for reasons of his own. This can take the form of simply no longer paying invoices within the terms set for this, but also by carrying out so-called reversals in the case of automatic payment arrangements.

Of course, a franchisee may have good reasons to make a payment a little later. Furthermore, there may of course be good reasons not to make a payment, for example if a delivery has not been delivered or has been delivered incorrectly. The franchisee concerned must inform the franchisor in writing in that case or in good time and announce that he is suspending his payment, stating the reasons for this. However, non-payment can also be a strong warning signal, especially when it takes on structural forms.

Franchisees sometimes use the tool of non-payment as an expression of dissatisfaction with the formula. This can also be an indication of business difficulties. Whatever the reason, it is generally important to continuously monitor the payment behavior of franchisees and, if problems arise, to take action at the earliest possible stage. In practice, it often happens that franchisees see their franchisor as a true bank and then fulfill all their financial obligations, except those to the franchisor. An unsolvable situation then arises which ultimately, especially when the franchise agreement is terminated, leads to substantial depreciation on the part of the franchisor. After all, it is difficult to pluck from a bald chicken. The higher the debts rise, the more difficult that situation will be to rectify later on.

The advice is therefore, once again, to keep a close eye on the payment behavior of franchisees and to act immediately if irregularities occur.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

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

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?

On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.

Go to Top