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
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.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee