Franchise agreements and horizontal cooperation
Franchise agreements are, by their nature, so-called vertical in nature. This means that there is a vertical cooperation between the franchisor, the one who makes the franchise formula available, and the franchisee, the one who exercises the franchise formula. This is generally seen as a collaboration between two different links in the supply chain.
In addition, we know of cooperation between competitors in practice. We call this horizontal cooperation. In terms of competition law, considerably less is allowed within a horizontal collaboration than in a vertical collaboration, based on regular franchise agreements. On the basis of a common franchise agreement, it is permitted to stipulate matters such as exclusive purchasing, price recommendation arrangements, non-competition clauses, etc. between franchisor and franchisee. All these arrangements are not or hardly permitted in the case of cooperation between competitors. In the case of a collaboration between competitors, one should think of a partnership of, for example, two or more greengrocers who jointly make agreements with regard to the subjects mentioned above. If these agreements take place on a joint, for example cooperative basis, the legislator only allows such cooperation to a very limited extent. This is completely different with a franchise relationship. The topics mentioned here can indeed be properly constructed on the basis of a franchise agreement between franchisor and franchisee. In practice, of course, there must actually be a vertical relationship: cooperation between competitors may not lead to an artificial franchise construction with the aim of stipulating vertically what is actually not possible horizontally.
When setting up a franchise construction, the parties are advised to carefully check in advance whether there is cooperation between the parties or whether there is a franchise concept actually made available by a franchisor. If the latter is the case, the way is open for a construction that is permissible under competition law, based on a common franchise agreement.
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.