Franchise Agreements and Terms and Conditions
Franchise agreements often include concise arrangements with regard to delivery and payment conditions. Usually these arrangements are limited to a payment term, sometimes supplemented with a sanction if this term (usually 14 days) is exceeded. In addition, however, the franchise organization also sometimes applies general terms and conditions when the franchisor in question is also the supplier of products and/or services to the franchisee. In practice, it also often happens that there are also other suppliers who supply products and/or services to the franchisee, at the instigation of the franchisor.
In practice, it appears that many franchise organizations often have different regulations next to each other: a concise regulation in the franchise agreement, in addition to separate general terms and conditions and various terms and conditions of suppliers. The latter category, in turn, consists of various conditions. For the applicability of all these terms and conditions, these must have been made known to the customer, the franchisee, and must have been explicitly declared applicable on a regular basis. Ideally, the franchisee should agree to this, and in any case not oppose this for applicability. The question arises whether it is still possible for the franchisee to make sense of the many different general terms and conditions. The same also applies to the franchisor. The limited arrangement from the franchise agreement does not harmonize in all cases with the extensive general terms and conditions of the franchisor/suppliers. The franchisor and franchisee would in any case be wise to compare the relevant part of the franchise agreement with the general terms and conditions of the franchisor/supplier. It will then become apparent whether there are duplications or omissions.
Adjustment is often a small effort. In this context, it is important, for example, whether the relevant part of the franchise agreement and the separate general terms and conditions contain a retention of title and whether this retention of title is established correctly. The franchisor and franchisee must realize that the goods in question are not subject to any other rights, such as a right of pledge, or that they are fully aware of this, and that they are aware of exactly which rights prevail under which circumstances. . It is part of good business practice that these positions are also known to any other entitled parties, such as the pledgee, in many cases a bank. The franchisor and franchisee must of course also take all these matters into account when the general terms and conditions of third-party suppliers are relevant.
Information provided by the franchisor in consultation with the franchise council can be very useful in this regard. This way it is clear and known to everyone how the various positions are. This can prevent many misunderstandings and unnecessary problems in the future when invoking the various rights.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Article Franchise+ – “Immediate information obligations of franchisors upon operation of the Franchise Act” – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated June 25, 2020
As soon as the Franchise Act enters into force, this will have an immediate effect on franchise agreements that already exist. The question is whether the information flows are set up optimally from a legal point of view.
Senate will adopt Franchise Act – dated 24 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The House of Representatives had unanimously adopted the proposal to introduce the Franchise Act on 16 June 2020
Franchise Act passed by the House of Representatives – dated 16 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Franchise Act was adopted by the House of Representatives on 16 June 2020.
Sandd franchisees find satisfaction in nullifying Sandd and PostNL merger – dated 12 June 2020
The franchisees of mail delivery company Sandd went to court in November, assisted by Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten. Court of Rotterdam rules on takeover by PostNL.
Plenary debate dated June 9, 2020 in the Lower House of the Franchise Act – dated June 10, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
On 9 June 2020, the legislative proposal for the Franchise Act was discussed in plenary in the House of Representatives. An amendment and a motion have been tabled.
Franchising is “a bottleneck in tackling healthcare fraud” – dated 10 June 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
According to the various supervisory authorities in the healthcare sector, franchise constructions can be seen as a non-transparent business construction in which the supervision of professional and