Possible pitfalls of a starting franchisee

Starting a business on the basis of “franchising” is in. This is not surprising, after all, as a starting entrepreneur, it certainly has a number of advantages to operate a company under a proven franchise concept. Below are seven points that, in my opinion, the aspiring franchisee should in any case take into account before working with a franchisor.

1. Is there a proven franchise concept? In other words, has the formula indeed proven itself in practice? If there is only a starting concept of a few months old, with a limited number of franchisees participating, the starting franchisee should be wary. In situations like this, I usually advise aspiring franchisees to have some solid conversations with potential fellow franchisees. This can be very enlightening.

2. Has proper – independent – market research been carried out from which it follows that the operation of the company is financially viable in the future? This is a very important point. If the franchisor, when asked, is not prepared to have such an investigation carried out at its expense, a healthy dose of suspicion is in order. In fact, in my view, a franchisee should not start without such an investigation. After all, the franchisee must have (some) insight into the expected results. In addition, the franchisee can hold the franchisor to account – if the results during the course of the journey are disappointing – the franchisor about the results of the market research.

3. It is also important that the franchise agreement includes the obligations of both the franchisor and the franchisee. There must be a balanced franchise agreement. Is the franchisor willing to take any suggestions from the franchisee into account, or is it “take it or leave it”? In short, the franchisee must be prevented from entering into a strangling contract, which only includes obligations for the franchisee.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Interview Franchise+ – mrs. J. Sterk and AW Dolphijn – “Reversal burden of proof in forecasts honored by court”

The new Acquisition Fraud Act indeed appears to be relevant for the franchise industry, according to this article from Franchise+.

By Ludwig en van Dam|20-12-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Franchisor convicted under the Acquisition Fraud Act

For the first time, a court has ruled, with reference to the Acquisition Fraud Act, that if a franchisee claims that the franchisor has presented an unsatisfactory prognosis

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.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |
Go to Top