Customers, clientele and exceptions thereto
Some franchise constructions have the characteristic that the products or services in question are only supplied to certain consumers. Is this allowed?
If a prohibition is imposed on all franchisees by the franchisor to restrict sales to certain end-users, this is permissible only if there is an objective justification linked to the product. For example, this could be a general ban on the sale of hazardous substances to certain customers or for safety or health reasons. Only then is such a ban allowed.
The situation is different when others than end users (consumers like you and me) are excluded. Consider, for example, a franchise formula in which the franchisees are assigned an exclusive clientele whereby the franchisees are not allowed to supply wholesalers. Only to end users may be delivered. In principle, such an arrangement is possible. However, so-called passive sales should remain possible. This means responding to spontaneous requests from individual customers. This may be the case, for example, as a result of general advertising and promotion in the media and on the Internet that reaches customers within exclusive customer groups of other franchisees. If the potential customer then wants to go to a franchisee in another exclusive area, this is possible at any time.
The franchisor and franchisee are advised to clearly record such situations in advance in the franchise agreement, so that no misunderstandings or undesirable situations can arise. For the record, it should be pointed out that what is described here is mandatory law, from which it is absolutely not allowed to deviate. If this does take place, this can form grounds for nullity of the franchise agreement. Other measures, for example by the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa), are also possible. Mr Th.R. Ludwig
For information: Theodoor Ludwig or Derk van Dam
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Which court for a rental and franchise agreement?
Which court is competent to rule on a related rental and franchise agreement?
Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”
The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.
Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act
For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.