Restyling, shopfitting
Within franchise organizations it often happens that the entire shop interior needs to be replaced. Franchise formulas evolve and require adjustment and innovation from time to time. If the concept is outdated, it is important that such revision takes place in one go, with all stores ideally being presented to the consumer in the new style at the same time.
In many cases, however, the franchise agreement does not provide for such an obligation to the franchisee. It goes without saying that it is very important to first test and evaluate such an operation in the Franchise Council. With proven pilot success and sufficient consensus in the franchise council, it is obvious that all stores will subsequently be converted. The franchisee can only be obliged to do so if an adequate reinvestment scheme is included in the agreement. This reinvestment scheme provides, among other things, for reasonable depreciation periods with regard to investments made previously. In the absence of such an arrangement, the franchisee cannot simply be expected to cooperate with the conversion. The feasibility of financing the conversion is further enhanced if it can be made clear to the bank that the financial scope has been created for the imminent restyling. It should be pointed out in this respect that when offering an entirely new contract after the end of the regular five-year term, it is not automatic that such restyling can be enforced without further ado. Case law has shown that the formulation of such additional conditions in the event of a contract extension may certainly not be required without further ado.
Franchisor and franchisee are therefore wise to anticipate major changes to their franchise formula by making adequate arrangements in advance. This prevents unnecessary problems during the sometimes necessary introduction of new shop fittings.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
When does a franchisor go too far when recruiting franchisees?
The judgment of the Court of Appeal of Arnhem-Leeuwarden on 5 February 2019 dealt with whether the franchisor had acted impermissibly when recruiting the franchisees.
Advisory Board on Regulatory Pressure (ATR) advises State Secretary Keijzer about the Franchise Act
In short, it is first advised to actively inform franchisors and franchisees about this amendment to the law.
Post non-competition ban on services and sales franchise
When a franchise agreement ends, many franchisees encounter a prohibition in the franchise agreement to perform similar work for a period of time thereafter
The concept of the Franchise Act: impact for franchisors and franchisees – dated February 5, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin
Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten believes that if the draft of the Franchise Act actually becomes law, a lot will change for franchisors and franchisees.
Buy franchise business and the laid off sick employee from 7 years ago
The question is whether a Bruna franchisee, when selling the franchise company to Bruna, should have stated that seven years ago an employee had left employment sick.
Court prohibits Domino’s unilateral area reduction when extending franchise agreements – dated January 28, 2019 – mr. RCWL Albers
On January 9, 2019, the District Court of Rotterdam rendered a judgment in a lawsuit initiated by the Association of Domino's Pizza Franchisees and all its members (almost all Domino's franchisees).