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

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

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Franchise Closing Sale – Who Gets the Sale Proceeds?

The judgment of the District Court of the Northern Netherlands dated 12 October 2016, ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2016:5061 (Administrator/Expert Group and Rabobank), focused on the question whether the franchisor, together with the bank,

By Alex Dolphijn|10-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Judge: franchisor’s duty of care comparable to that of a bank”

Various judgments in 2016 made it clear how high the standard of care for a franchisor towards its franchisees is.

Go to Top