Franchise agreement or employment contract?
“Franchise Agreement” is not a legal term. The law sees a franchise agreement as an ordinary agreement. A so-called unnamed agreement. This means that, provided that within the legal limits of, for example, competition law, people are allowed to agree on what they want. This is fundamentally different from the term “employment contract”. It is not determined by the parties, but by the legislator when an agreement must be regarded as an employment contract. The consequence of this is known. A wide range of legal rules of a social and fiscal nature are poured into the agreement and the parties are squeezed into an employment law straitjacket in the polder model. The employment contract is therefore a so-called named contract. According to the law, an agreement is in principle an employment contract if one has committed himself to perform personal work in an authority relationship and receives a remuneration for this. For that qualification, not only the (original) party intention, but also the actual performance of the agreement is important.
The boundary between employment contract and franchise agreement is increasingly becoming blurred. Work that used to be performed as an employee is now often carried out by means of a franchise agreement with “self-employed persons”. Common examples of this can be found at service providers and delivery companies, among others. Not only the tax authorities and UWV, but also disappointed franchisees can adopt a critical attitude towards these situations and afterwards, often successfully, state that what the parties had intended as a franchise agreement is in fact an employment contract. It goes without saying that the consequences of this can be significant. The franchisee is therefore wise to request a declaration of self-employment (VAR declaration) from the tax authorities in advance. The franchisor would be wise to set up his franchise agreement in such a way that it cannot be regarded as an employment contract and to have it tested in advance by the UWV and the tax authorities.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Judge anticipates Franchise Act: no mandatory formula change (without threshold value)
The District Court of Amsterdam ruled that a Blokker franchisee is not obliged to renovate the store in accordance with the latest formula principles, as instructed by Blokker.
Interview Mr. J. Sterk and mr. C. Rutten in Franchise+: “Call to the automotive sector: prepare yourself well for the new Franchise Act” dated October 2, 2020
The new Franchise Act has a broad effect, also in the automotive sector. But are people aware of it enough?
Article The National Franchise Guide – “Corona discount of 50% on the rent” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 15, 2020
Disappointing turnover due to the corona crisis may mean that the rent is halved, even if the rent is partly turnover-related.
Article Franchise+ – “Franchisor uses “derivative formula” (without his knowledge)” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated September 9, 2020
Many franchisors will not be aware of the fact that they use a "derived formula" as referred to in the Franchise Act.
Article Franchise+ – “Obligations and rights of the starting franchisee” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dd
What should you pay attention to as a starting franchisee, what are your obligations and what are your rights when concluding the franchise agreement?
Article Mr. C. Damen – Three conditions for the right to customer compensation for the agent upon termination of the agency agreement – dated August 26, 2020
In the agency relationship between an agent and a client (the principal), the parties record their cooperation agreements in an agency agreement. When the principal enters into the agency agreement