Mandatory franchise council?
Not in all cases does the franchise agreement contain a reference to the franchise council or a comparable body. Are franchisor and franchisee required to maintain such a council or similar body?
Strictly speaking, it is not necessary for a franchise council to be present. However, it is advisable to have proper and careful consultation in some way between franchisees and franchisor. There is more than one reason for this. A balanced franchise relationship is one of the elements that emphasize the independence of the franchisee, in order to prevent a disguised employer/employee relationship (fictitious employment). In that context, careful consultation about purchasing, marketing, training, etc. is of eminent importance. A good franchisor is therefore wise to set up and keep a mature franchise council alive. Ideally, the franchise council should be democratically composed.
Obviously, preventing a disguised employer/employee relationship is not the only, otherwise defensive, motive for setting up a franchise council or similar consultative body. After all, it is in the interest of all involved that proper consultation takes place on a regular basis on the above subjects, so that this can lead to improvements for the benefit of the entire franchise organization.
In addition, significant revisions of the franchise formula, for example consisting of a general restyling, accompanied by substantial investments, are simply unfeasible if there is not at least a consensus on this among the franchisees. In order to create this support, a franchise council is also very important in that context. In this way, everything can be carefully considered before individual coordination and agreement with the franchisees can take place.
Forms other than a franchise council can work just as well. It is important that a representative representation of the franchisees forms a serious discussion partner for the franchisor and that the advice and recommendations of the consultative body are of course taken to heart.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.
Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.