Franchise Board Rules
In practice, various forms of consultation circulate between franchisor and franchisee. This consultation is often structured in the form of accompanying regulations. We know these regulations in many shapes and sizes.
Good Franchise Council regulations are characterized by the possibility of allowing proportional and possibly regional representation to participate in the Franchise Council. Ideally, these members of the franchise council can be nominated or elected by their own supporters. However, it is certain to set up exaggerated regulations too elaborately. Good Franchise Council regulations are no more than a vehicle for the proper functioning of the Franchise Council. Franchise council regulations that are overly enthusiastic must be prevented from ending up in endless meeting sessions, both nationally and regionally. The question arises who benefits from this. The authority of the council itself is also central to various franchise regulations. Does the franchise council have advisory powers or can it actually force decisions by means of far-reaching control or, for example, a right of veto?
Linked to this is also the principle of the representative authority of the franchise council for the benefit of all franchisees. In practice, there is still the idea that the franchise council can simply bind the supporters. However, without very explicitly defined powers of the individual franchisee with regard to this power, this is by no means the case. When a franchisor makes agreements with the franchise council regarding a restyling, the individual franchisee is therefore not bound by this, unless this has been expressly agreed between the franchise council and the franchisee. Franchise rules don’t have to be too complicated. The regulations are short, practical and unambiguous. Composition and authority are easy to formulate. In any case, it must be prevented that the regulations are a prelude to Polish country days and thus completely overshoot their goal. The same also applies to the functioning of the franchise council itself.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.