Price maintenance and non-competition clause
Franchise agreements are increasingly governed by competition law advancing from Europe. This is also not always sufficiently taken into account in day-to-day franchising practice. An example of this is the imposition of fixed prices.
The court recently confirmed in summary proceedings that the franchisor may not impose fixed (minimum) prices on its franchisees. This is against competition law. Advertising campaigns, provided they meet certain conditions, are excluded. In principle, it is irrelevant what the organization’s market share is. Small franchise organizations therefore also fall under this prohibition. The structural imposition of fixed prices is therefore always prohibited. This also applies if these minimum prices have been established in mutual consultation with the franchisees.
In principle, agreements on maximum prices are permitted because they do not restrict competition. Insofar as maximum prices are at such a low level that they actually constitute a minimum price because the franchisee can only sell at a loss if he sells below this maximum price, one could possibly also speak of a prohibited price agreement.
The consequence of such a prohibited agreement may be that the entire franchise agreement is declared null and void, which was also the case in the above-mentioned ruling. The consequences of this are often incalculable. For example, the non-competition clause often included in the franchise agreement is then also null and void and the franchisee may be able to submit a claim against the franchisor for undue payment.
In franchise relationships, the franchisee should in principle always be free to determine the minimum selling price of his products and/or services.
The above does not alter the fact that the franchisor may give price advice. However, it is advisable to always stipulate that the franchisee is free to deviate from this.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Does a franchisee have to accept a new model franchise agreement?
On 31 March 2017, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:2457, ruled in interlocutory proceedings on the question whether franchisor Bram Ladage had complied with the franchise agreement with its franchisee.
Mandatory (market-based) purchase prices for franchisees
To what extent can a franchisor change agreements about the (market) purchase prices of the goods that the franchisees are obliged to purchase?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.