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

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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: , |
Go to Top