Reinvestment / restyling within an existing franchise concept.
In practice, we have recently seen more and more developments that point to a conversion/restyling of the franchise organization, for which the franchisee must reinvest.
An important question in such a situation is whether the existing franchise agreement offers the possibility of realizing such a conversion/restyling of the entire franchise organization?
If a provision is included in the existing franchise agreement from which, in short, it follows that the franchisee can be obliged, at the franchisor’s request, to cooperate in a “collective conversion/restyling” of the organisation, then the franchisee can (in principle) must also be adhered to. It is important here who is expected to bear the costs for the conversion/restyling.
If the franchisee is expected to make a significant contribution to this, it is important that the franchisor preferably provides forecasts that are geared to the new situation, in order to be able to take the consequences of the conversion into account. This is all the more pressing now that this situation can be compared with the situation of the so-called pre-contractual phase. After all, even in the situation of a major restructuring of the organization, the franchisor must cover the investments to be made by the franchisees with the necessary care obligations.
If a reinvestment is of a limited nature, a prognosis may be omitted, although in such a situation a franchisor should also ask himself to what extent the reinvestment will have a negative effect on the franchisee’s organisation. If it is a considerable investment, the franchisor should, as already stated above, ask himself whether the investment actually leads to an improvement in turnover or whether a loss of turnover is prevented. In addition, the requested investment must be justified in relation to the operating result of the franchisees involved. In short, this must be done with the necessary caution and policy. This will be discussed in more detail in one of the following articles.
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
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,
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.