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
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
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,
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”
Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.