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

Article in Entrance: “Rentals”

“The landlord increased the prices of the property every year, but he hasn't done this for 2 years, maybe he forgets. Can he still claim an overdue amount later?”

No valid appeal to non-compete clause in franchising

On 28 February 2017, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1469, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland ruled on whether a franchisee could be bound by a non-compete clause.

Structurally unsound revenue forecasts from the franchisor

On 15 March 2017, the District Court of Limburg ruled in eight similar judgments (including ECLI:NL:RBLIM:2017:2344) on the franchise agreements of various franchisees of the P3 franchise formula.

Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?

On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores

Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed

On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee

Go to Top