The last period shows that discussions regarding goodwill payments at the end of a franchise partnership are still numerous. These discussions usually boil down to a franchisee’s opinion that his franchisor should pay him a goodwill amount for the customer base built up by that franchisee during the term of the franchise agreement. This discussion occurs in particular in situations where either the operation of the franchise establishment in question is completely discontinued or the franchisor takes over the establishment. This discussion is less common when the franchisee, within the rules of the franchise agreement, transfers his business to a successive franchisee, because in those cases a market-based acquisition price is often paid.

In the other two situations, however, the discussion does take place, whereby the franchisee concerned is undoubtedly inspired by the legal provisions regarding agency. Without wanting to go into detail here, it should be noted that it does include a goodwill arrangement at the end of the agreement. However, such a regulation does not exist in franchising relationships. Therefore, unless otherwise agreed between the parties, a franchisor is not obliged to make any goodwill payment to a departing franchisee on the basis of the franchise agreement as such. If that does happen, then this is solely the result of negotiations between the parties and the payment, where appropriate, of a price in line with the market. Goodwill, it must be repeated, is pre-eminently a subject that is subject to market forces and, unless otherwise agreed in principle, is at the discretion of the entrepreneurs involved.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Article in Entrance: “Rentals”

“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”

No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising

On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.

Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor

On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.

Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?

On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores

Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed

On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee

Go to Top