Franchisors may no longer impose changes to shopping hours
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented. This bill ensures that, among other things, the franchisee must be able to determine his own opening hours, of course within the limits set by the Shopping Hours Act and the relevant municipality.
Adjustment of opening hours by adjusting an already running franchise or rental agreement will soon no longer be possible without the explicit consent of the franchisee or judicial intervention.
There are franchise agreements in which no explicit opening hours are stipulated, but reference is made to a decision by someone else for the determination of the opening hours. This can be a landlord, a shopkeepers’ association, an owners’ association, but also a franchisor or franchisees’ association.
This bill includes agreements in a franchise agreement, which stipulates, for example, that the franchisee’s shop must be open from Monday to Saturday from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. and on Thursday from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. still allowed. A franchise agreement that stipulates that the opening hours determined by the franchisees’ association are decisive is also permitted.
However, if the Franchisees Association subsequently makes a decision on mandatory changes to opening hours that the Franchisee has not expressly agreed to (the Franchisee did not vote for such a decision) is void.
Provisions in which the franchisor or lessor can unilaterally determine opening hours after the agreement has been concluded will also be of no effect if the franchisee or lessee has not expressly agreed to this.
This regulation also brings existing decisions about opening hours, which the franchisee has not explicitly agreed to, under this bill, but the nullity is limited to the period from the entry into force of the bill.
For the time being, the bill is only a draft and has not yet entered into force. Franchisors can therefore still see their chance. Franchisees have to be careful!
mr. AW Dolphin – franchise lawyer
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
Other messages
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.
Supermarket letter – 26
Supermarket Newsletter No. 26
Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans
It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.