(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
Franchisors may no longer impose changes to store hours – February 12, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
At the end of 2018, a draft of the “Freedom of Choice for Retailers (Opening Hours) Act” was presented.
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.