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 If the concept is outdated, it is important that such revision takes place in one go, with all stores ideally being presented to the consumer in the new style at the same time.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

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.

Go to Top