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
The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts
A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.
Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017
On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the
Forecasts at startup franchise formula
The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the
Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?
On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation
Transfer customer data to franchisor
In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.
Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?
The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,