Internet sales are also enjoying increasing interest in conventional franchise circles. Particularly in retail, the turnover share and with it the interest in adding internet sales to the conventional formats is increasing rapidly. This phenomenon has not yet been taken into account in all franchise agreements. Particularly in those situations, the question of what is and what is not allowed arises more and more often. Is the franchisor or the franchisee free, without further agreements, to develop such activities or not? First of all, in this context, the franchisee may not be restricted in the possibilities of passive sales under competition law. The use of the internet and therefore internet sales can often be regarded as a form of passive sales. This means that the franchisor cannot simply prohibit the possibility of internet sales in the franchise agreement, or at least can only reserve this right for itself. The starting point is therefore that the franchisee must be allowed to operate its own website, provided that the internet sales are not actively aimed at sales in another issued exclusive territory or the area that is exclusively reserved for the franchisor.

Naturally, the franchisor can include rules in the franchise agreement, or preferably in the handbook, regarding the quality and formula-compliant appearance of websites and internet sales. Conversely, this is not necessarily the same. In situations where (absolute) district exclusivity has been granted, the franchisor is not automatically free to make internet sales in this exclusive district. First of all, not because the rule that passive sales must be allowed pertains to the vertical relationship from the franchisor to the franchisee and therefore does not automatically apply the other way around. If the franchisor does wish to reserve this option, it would therefore be wise for the franchisor to expressly include this in the franchise agreement. If it is not included, a discussion may arise afterwards about this form of competition by the franchisor within the exclusive territory. It is of course more obvious that the franchisor and franchisee will mainly use the possibilities of the internet to strengthen the formula. It is therefore particularly important that the (im)possibilities for this are recognized in time and that an arrangement is made for this in the franchise relationship. If such an arrangement has not been made, the franchisee may, under certain circumstances, believe that area exclusivity is being infringed improperly and file a claim for compensation for the damage suffered as a result.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Judge: Protect franchisee against supermarket organization (Coop) as lessor

Does the franchisee need legal protection from supermarket franchisor Coop? The District Court of Rotterdam ruled on 9 February 2018, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2018:1151, that this is the case.

Acquisition fraud vs. error in franchise forecasting

Who has to prove that the franchisor's forecast is unsound? In principle, this is the franchisee. If the franchisee invokes the Acquisition Fraud Act, it may be that

Obligation to sell back at the end of the franchise agreement

Franchise agreements sometimes provide that the franchisee is required to sell back purchased assets at the end of the franchise agreement.

Position of franchisees in franchisor restructuring

Franchisees must be adequately and generously informed in advance by the franchisor about the content and consequences of (further) agreements...

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal of burden of proof in forecasts approved by court” – February 2018

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+. Alex Dolphijn of Ludwig & Van Dam assists a franchisee in a

By Ludwig en van Dam|01-02-2018|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |
Go to Top