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
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
Article Franchise & Law No. 7 – Franchise agreement as general terms and conditions
Uniformity of the franchise formula and (therefore also) uniformity of the agreements with the franchisees will often be of great importance to the franchisor.
The franchisee’s customer base
If the partnership between a franchisee and a franchisor ends, the question of who will continue to serve the customers may arise.
The healthcare franchisor is not a healthcare provider
The Healthcare Quality, Complaints and Disputes Act (WKKGZ) creates the possibility of government measures being imposed on healthcare institutions to guarantee the required quality of healthcare.
The restructuring within the Intergamma formats from a legal perspective
The legal reality is sometimes more unruly than the factual. The controversial issue at Intergamma is a good example of this.
Open vacancy: lawyer-employee and/or lawyer-trainee!
Due to the departure of one of our colleagues, we are looking for a new lawyer-employee or lawyer-trainee. Interested?