Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interim judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse), shows that the court considered the question whether the cost price charged by the franchisor to the franchisee was correct.
The franchise system is as follows. The personnel mediated by the franchisees enter into an employment contract with the franchisor and are paid by the franchisor. The franchisor invoices the hirers for the hours worked. After withholding a franchise fee, the franchisor also passes on the amounts received from the hirers to the franchisees.
The franchisees independently determine the rate for the staff to be borrowed. This rate includes a cost price. The cost price must be determined by the franchisees themselves on the basis of the so-called “wage cost price conversion factor”. This “wage cost conversion factor” is determined annually by the franchisor. Among other things, that component does not excel in transparency.
The franchise agreements that the franchisor concludes with the franchisees are materially similar to the franchise agreements that another franchise organization (Olympia) has concluded with its franchisees. In the judgment of the Court of Appeal of The Hague on 12 January 2016, ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2016:256 (J&P Consultants/Olympia), it was determined, among other things, that, insofar as the compensation for the cost price paid by the franchisees, in retrospect, the actual exceeds the cost price, this has been paid unduly (Article 6:203 paragraph 2 of the Dutch Civil Code) and can therefore be reclaimed by the franchisee.
The court follows this judgment and rules that a reasonable interpretation of the franchise agreement means that it is impermissible if the franchisor, by charging an excessive cost price, has created a second (hidden) franchise fee in addition to the franchise fee.
The court has not yet been able to determine whether there has actually been an excessive cost price charged and indicates that it intends to have this further assessed by experts.
mr. AW Dolphijn – Franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl .
Other messages
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and
Article Franchiseplus: “Franchisors participate in franchisees” – dated June 3, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisors are increasingly participating in the franchisee's business. There are several benefits for both the franchisee and the franchisor.
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount on rent” – dated June 2, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
If a rental property is obliged to be closed due to corona, there may be a right to a rent reduction, according to the Northern Netherlands court.