No franchise agreement, despite the designation
Not everything is what it looks like. Even if the franchisor and franchisee believe that there is a franchise agreement, the legal situation may be different. The consequences can then be very far-reaching. For the time being, the franchise agreement has not been regulated by law.
Although franchise agreements have certain characteristics according to the literature and case law, these characteristics sometimes also apply to other types of agreements that are regulated by law. Those legal rules will then apply to the relationship between the parties. It is true that the agreement may state “franchise agreement”, but that does not automatically apply. What matters is the actual relationship between the parties and not just the title of the signed document.
For example, cases are known in which the parties entered into an agreement they called a franchise agreement, but the court ruled that it was in fact an employment contract or an agency contract. In retrospect, the driving instructor, ice cream vendor and physiotherapist turned out to have an employment contract. The stove seller eventually turned out to only mediate in the sale of stoves for the benefit of the “franchisor”/supplier and was therefore a commercial agent. Strict legal rules apply to the employment contract and the agency contract, which cannot be deviated from in an agreement.
For example, termination of an agency agreement is bound by statutory rules and cannot be dissolved without judicial intervention. Furthermore, the “franchisee” can, where appropriate, claim a goodwill compensation upon termination of the cooperation. Legal restrictions also apply with regard to non-competition clauses.
There can be an employment contract if the “franchisee” is obliged to carry out all work himself and the “franchisor” always gives instructions on how and when the work must be carried out. An employment contract cannot simply be terminated. This means, among other things, that the “franchisee” is entitled to a customary, or at least minimum, wage. Particularly in the case of a service franchise carried out by one self-employed person, the risk of an employment contract is lurking.
Are you sure you have signed a franchise agreement? In case of doubt, it is worthwhile to have this checked or to submit it to the tax authorities for review.
Mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – franchise attorneys
Ludwig & Van Dam Franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice. Do you want to respond? Go to Sterk@ludwigvandam.nl or dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl
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.