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
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