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
Agreements Related to the Franchise Agreement
On 31 October 2017, the Arnhem-Leeuwarden Court of Appeal issued similar judgments for nineteen franchisees (ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9453 through ECLI:NL:GHARL:2017:9472).
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the