Pre-agreement, letter of intent

A so-called pre-agreement is occasionally concluded before entering into a franchise agreement. This form-free agreement in itself generally obliges the franchisor and franchisee to exchange information, which is fundamental to entering into the franchise relationship. A good pre-agreement contains elements that express which information must at least be made available to the prospective franchisee, namely:
– the franchise agreement;
– a financial estimate for at least three years;
– a complete handbook;
– any financing arrangement;
– the European Code of Honor on Franchising.

These elements are essential for establishing a lasting franchise relationship. Without the franchisee having independently convinced himself of the soundness and acceptability of the above matters, he would be wise not to sign a franchise agreement.
In practice, more far-reaching pre-agreements sometimes want to circulate. These are agreements that oblige the franchisee to enter into the franchise agreement within a certain period after the provision has been made available, unless the financing of the whole does not come about. The result of this is therefore that the franchisee agrees in advance with the content of various documents mentioned above, without these documents being able to form a well-considered motive for him not to do business with the franchisor. After all, if only the financing is a condition for whether or not to eventually enter into the franchise relationship, this means that the content of, for example, the handbook or the financial estimates may apparently no longer form a reason to ultimately refrain from joining. in the intended franchise formula. So a house is bought without having seen it. You can drive by. It goes without saying that such stipulations should not be signed by a prospective franchisee. It gets even worse when (enormous) penalty clauses are attached to a number of things. Suppose the franchisee gets his financing arranged, but cannot agree with the content of the franchise agreement or the handbook and on these grounds does not wish – for reasons of his own – to operate his intended franchise business, then a fine awaits him, without ever engaged in any activity.

Equally absurd is the provision that makes it impossible for the franchisee to work with a competing chain. It is therefore not really possible for a prospective franchisee to orient himself at different franchise chains. It is almost inconceivable that an employee who wants to work at a bank should not be allowed to talk to ING Bank after he decides not to work at Rabobank for reasons of his own. The tenability of such clauses can be guessed by the way. However, prevention is better than cure.
A good pre-agreement is limited in nature and does not create any additional obligations. A good franchisor will also want to offer prospective franchisees every opportunity to learn more about the franchise organization in question. After all, the parties are going to work with each other for the long term and therefore benefit greatly from getting their long-term relationship off to a good start.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

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.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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.

Go to Top