(Im)decent behaviour
In practice, situations occur in which a franchisor is confronted with conduct by one or more franchisees that does not fall directly under the scope of the franchise agreement. This includes matters that do not directly relate to what has been agreed in the contract, such as the manner in which fellow franchisees and/or the franchisor are treated, making statements to third parties, such as the press, about the concept and the manner in which of cooperation, the way in which external relations of the franchise organization are dealt with, and, based on some practical examples, the way in which conflicts are handled within the organisation. The franchise agreement often contains a dispute settlement procedure, but this generally only contains formal provisions regarding the manner in which a dispute must be brought before and before which body this must be done.
In practice, it sometimes happens that when franchisees have a dispute with their franchisor on an individual basis, they try to find allies for their cause among fellow franchisees. In some cases, this leads to the establishment of an interest group. There is nothing against this in itself, of course, but if this takes the form of deliberately sabotaging the cooperation by giving the franchise organization a bad name, whether or not via the press, or by trying to charge fellow franchisees against the franchisor, such conduct may be unlawful and, as such, grounds for rescinding the franchise agreement and seeking damages from the affected franchisee(s). The reverse is also possible: a franchisor can also behave towards one or more of its franchisees in such a way that this gives rise to unlawfulness.
It is not for nothing that the European Code of Honor on Franchising stipulates that, in short, parties should treat each other with good will, especially in the event of conflicts. If that benevolence is not exercised, the limits of decency may come into view, even though the parties in a franchise relationship have not made any agreements with each other about this. If these limits are exceeded, as can be seen from the foregoing, this can have serious and far-reaching consequences.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
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.