Is franchising always the right form of cooperation?
Franchising is in most cases a form of cooperation that can bring great benefits to all involved, the proverbial “win-win situation”. Evidence of the success of franchising can be seen in multiples in every shopping center in the Netherlands. In a relatively short period of time, the phenomenon of franchising has spread to virtually all sections of society.
Franchise concepts therefore come in an enormous variety, from shoemakers to fast-food restaurants and from courier services to drugstores. The variation in activity that lends itself to franchising therefore seems endless. However, there are limits to that. Practice shows that not all franchise concepts, sometimes started with good courage and good intentions, lead to success. In general, it is extremely difficult to indicate where the boundary lies in that context. An important rule of thumb is that, perhaps, of course, the franchisee can generate sufficient turnover with the business to be operated by him, which, when compared to his operating costs, produces an adequate operating result from which to live. That goes without saying, of course, but in practice it sometimes happens that concepts meet that requirement in theory, but prove difficult to handle in practice. It goes without saying that concrete examples cannot be given here, but where some business activities as (part of) a branch company, belonging to a larger whole, can be an adequate addition to the total package that the company concerned offers to the end user, the same activity can be used for a franchisee simply offer too little economic basis. In order to anticipate these problems, it is therefore always advisable to open one or more pilot locations of the franchise concept to be launched on the market and to actually operate it for a considerable period of time, so that the (potential) franchisor knows from his own experience whether the concept is suitable to be operated as a franchise concept. Incidentally, members of the Dutch Franchise Association are already obliged to do so under the European Code of Honor on Franchising, which explicitly states the desirability of a pilot location.
As an extension of the above, the prognosis problem has already been discussed several times in this section. Does a (potential) franchisor paint a too rosy picture?
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
![](https://ludwigvandam.megaconcept.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/232court-min-400x222.jpg)
Other messages
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
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