Franchise agreements typically include transfer arrangements that cover the following:
the franchisee’s business is primarily offered to the franchisor; if the franchisor does not wish to take over the franchisee’s business within a reasonable period of time, the franchisee may offer the business to another. Such schemes have many variants and additions.
In the first place, it is important that the agreement states that if the franchisor does not wish to take over the franchisee’s business, the business in question will not be offered to any acquiring franchisee on different terms. If this is not included in the agreement, it can be argued that making another offer to the franchisor is unlawful.

In addition, transfer arrangements often include the possibility that the franchisor must, so to speak, approve the acquiring franchisee. In other words, the franchisor must give consent to the acquiring franchisee before the selling franchisee can actually transfer the business in question. The question then arises as to which requirements the franchisor may test. Specifically, he may not reasonably withhold his approval. A special duty of care of the franchisor lies in the fact that a sustainable perspective must be offered for the benefit of the acquiring franchisee. After all, the transfer situation is comparable to a pre-contractual phase, in which a candidate franchisee may also rely on the expectations raised by the franchisor, which in practice are usually reflected in an adequate investment and operating forecast.

A possible complication in the transfer may be that the amount paid for the company in question is so high that it can become difficult to guarantee a profitable operation for the coming years. Should the franchisor then prevent the acquiring franchisee from entering into a contract? There are certainly arguments in favor of this, among other things from the franchisor’s specific duty of care towards the franchisee. To prevent this problem, it could be considered to include in the franchise agreement that transfer is also dependent on prior approval from a reputable financing institution. In this way it is prevented that unfinanced goodwill leads to a problem for the acquiring franchisee and the franchise organization in general.

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”

Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

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

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

Go to Top