Unauthorized Dispute Resolutions Within Franchise Organizations
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
Franchise agreements occasionally contain dispute resolutions that grant powers to the franchisee(s), the franchise council and/or a franchise association. In such disputes – representatives of – franchisees thus directly or indirectly judge their (former) colleagues. This may be the case, for example, when a franchise agreement contains a dispute resolution scheme that gives the franchise board discretion with regard to the influence of certain advertisements of a franchisee in the exclusive territory of another franchisee. If the latter is negatively affected by this, he can then turn to the disputes committee, as described in the relevant provisions in the franchise agreement. This disputes committee then consists of, for example, two members of the franchise council and two representatives of the franchisor. This creates a situation in which fellow franchisees have a power comparable to that of a judicial authority.
In general, one should be very cautious about the durability of such constructions. This is because this often involves so-called horizontal anti-competitive agreements: the franchisees have mutually agreed on a dispute settlement that, often exclusively, must settle the conflict that has arisen. The individual franchisee is subject to such judgment at all times. Usually such constructions are legally impermissible. In concrete terms, this means that they are simply not allowed under the system of the law. In a large number of cases they are, by their very nature, null and void.
In the example outlined above, franchisees make judgments about their fellow franchisees. In principle, they may have an interest in the outcome of the problem presented to them. A situation thus arises which may impede an independent, neutral judicial process. The legislator has precisely wanted to prevent these situations. If such dispute resolutions are found in agreements, they should at least be viewed very critically. In a number of cases it is then possible to bypass these regulations and, if necessary, go to the Civil Court. The latter is not an interested party and is neutral in all cases. Incidentally, it should be noted that the quality of conflict management in the courts is generally somewhat higher. Not surprising, it’s his profession.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
No non-compete violation by franchisee – mr. AW Dolphijn – dated February 4, 2021
On 20 January 2021, the District Court of Rotterdam, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2021:657, ...
(Partially) similar activities not in conflict with non-compete clause – mr. RCWL Albers – dated February 4, 2021
In recent proceedings, two (former) franchisees were sued by their ...
Court issues groundbreaking verdict: Rent reduction in substantive proceedings for catering operators as a result of the lockdown – mr. C. Damen – dated February 1, 2021
Last Wednesday, a controversial ruling was made and published for ...
Article Franchise+ -The risks of a minimum turnover requirement in the franchise agreement for the franchisor
Including a minimum turnover to be achieved in the franchise ...
Article The National Franchise Guide: “Minimum turnover as a forecast”
For many years now, the responsibility and liability of the ...
Article Franchise+ – “Franchise statistics 2019: decline trend continues, caused by the Franchise Act?”- mr. J. Sterk, mr. M. Munnik and mr. JAJ Devilee
Since 2007, Ludwig & Van Dam attorneys have been periodically ...