Indirect price maintenance
As is well known in franchising practice, resale price maintenance is out of the question. The franchisor who obliges a franchisee to prescribe a sales price is therefore crossing the line. What about indirect price maintenance, where price maintenance can also arise through indirect measures and/or sanctions?
Forms in which indirect price maintenance can be expressed include the following: a franchisor can price certain products in advance by means of a bar code, with the product being settled at the cash register at the predetermined price by means of scanning the product. Furthermore, in general, a binding recommendation can be made to use a certain selling price. The franchisee is expected to determine the sales price independently, but must focus on the pricing policy of the franchise organization in question. Another form of indirect resale price maintenance can arise through communicating directly with consumers over the heads of the franchisees about the sales prices in question, for example through advertising. If practice means that the franchisee then has no choice and must charge the sales price communicated by the franchisor, resale price maintenance has also arisen in this way.
All these and similar forms of indirect price fixing are inadmissible and prohibited. The sanctions for absolute price maintenance can be far-reaching, both on the part of the Netherlands Competition Authority (NMa) and on the cooperation between franchisor and franchisee itself. Under certain circumstances, the contested provision and even the entire franchise agreement may become null and void. Franchisor and franchisee would therefore be wise to adjust their contracts on this point in good time if necessary and to hold good consultations in general.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial
The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?
On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee