The possibility of actively or not actively recruiting customers outside

Based on the relevant regulations, it is permitted to limit the franchisee’s active solicitation activities to its exclusive territory. In that area, the franchisee can then freely advertise and acquire customers in any other way. In that case, the franchisor should not impose any restrictions on the franchisee in actively acquiring customers within the exclusive territory. It is of course possible that certain advertisements end up outside the exclusive territory of the relevant franchisee, whether or not via the internet.

It follows from the above that when a customer, who is not located in the franchisee’s exclusive territory, turns to this franchisee, the franchisee is free to do business with this customer. This also applies, of course, if such customer contact is established via the internet or a catalogue. In that context, however, a franchisee may be prohibited from actively distributing e-mails outside its exclusive territory. This is what is known as active recruitment. In other words: if there is active sales, the possibilities of a franchisee can be limited. In summary, the above means that if a franchisor allocates an exclusive territory to its franchisee, the franchisee must have considerable freedom in acquiring customers in that territory; the so-called active sale. The franchisor can only impose restrictions if the sales activities take place in the area outside the exclusive territory of the relevant franchisee. Often this will also arise from the protection of other franchisees located in that adjacent area, each with its own exclusive area.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys summon Sandd and PostNL on behalf of the Sandd franchisees – dated 9 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) has today summoned Sandd and PostNL before the court in Arnhem. The VFS believes that Sandd and PostNL are letting the franchisees down hard.

By Alex Dolphijn|09-01-2020|Categories: Statements & current affairs|

Article The National Franchise Guide: “Why joint and several liability, for example, next to private?” – dated 7 January 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin

Franchisees are often asked to co-sign the franchise agreement in addition to their franchise, for example. Sometimes franchisees refuse to do so and the franchise agreement is not signed.

Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten assists Sandd franchisees: Franchisees Sandd challenge postal monopoly in court – dated 12 November 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The Association of Franchisees of Sandd (VFS) is challenging the decision of State Secretary Mona Keijzer to approve the postal merger between PostNL and Sandd before the court in Rotterdam.

By Alex Dolphijn|12-11-2019|Categories: Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Franchisee trapped by non-compete clause? – dated October 21, 2019 – mr. AW Dolphin

The District Court of East Brabant has ruled that a franchisee was still bound by the non-competition clause in the event of premature termination of the franchise agreement.

Link franchise agreement and rental agreement uncertain? – dated October 14, 2019 – mr K. Bastiaans

It is no exception within a franchise relationship that the parties agree that the franchise agreement and the rental agreement are inextricably linked.

By mr. K. Bastiaans|14-10-2019|Categories: Franchise Knowledge Center / National Franchise and Formula Letter Publications|
Go to Top