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

The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?

On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a

Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement

The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position

By Jeroen Sterk|01-09-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee

On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held

Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act

The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.

By Ludwig en van Dam|10-08-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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?

Go to Top