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
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.