Extension under “the then applicable conditions”
Many franchise agreements contain a franchise renewal clause that allows the franchisee to re-exercise the franchise for another five years, provided that the franchise agreement is accepted “on the terms then in force”.
Does this somewhat cryptic formulation constitute a license for a franchisor to unilaterally change the conditions, i.e. the content of the new franchise agreement, when the contract extension is up for discussion? By no means. It has been established in case law that a franchisor is certainly not free to freely change the conditions in the new franchise agreement in accordance with its own insight and policy in the event of a contract renewal. For example, if a higher fee is suddenly requested, this means that the option granted can in practice only be invoked under such additional conditions that this is more than the franchisee could expect. The conduct of the franchisor in question described here may then be unlawful.
Does this mean that a franchisor cannot change his franchise agreement at all in the event of a contract renewal if the above option is included in the franchise agreement? Not that either. The franchisor can indeed change and add to various subjects in the franchise agreement. However, it is important to reach consensus in advance with the existing franchisees, for example in consultation with the franchise council. In this way, surprises in the event of a contract extension for existing franchisees are eliminated in advance and a clear situation is created long before any contract extension that benefits everyone.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Franchisor liable for forecasts from third parties – dated March 6, 2019 – mr. M. Munnik
According to settled case law, a franchisor acts unlawfully towards its franchisee when a franchisor independently conducts research in a careless manner and as a result...
The (hard) franchise agreement and duty of care qualified – WPNR 7226 (2019)
The government intends to include a legal regulation on franchising in the Civil Code to protect the weak position of the franchisee.
The municipality must allow temporary Albert Heijn
On 7 February 2019, the District Court of Noord-Holland ruled on whether the municipality should allow a temporary Albert Heijn
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.