Consultation: forms and possibilities
Mr Th.R. Ludwig – Franchise attorney
In practice, consultation between the franchisor and the franchisee often takes place through a franchise council. The franchisees are usually represented in this council, where they, together with the franchisor, regularly discuss a number of matters that are in the interest of the entire franchise organization. This usually concerns matters such as product innovation, marketing, etc. A franchise council usually has advisory powers and no decision-making powers.
In addition, in practice it often happens that franchisees set up a franchise association among themselves. The franchisees are hereby interconnected in order to represent their interests towards the franchisor. Usually the same or similar topics are discussed here. Usually, however, there is no institutionalized obligation on the part of the franchisor to consult with such an association. The franchisor has usually already set up a franchise council for this purpose.
How does the franchise council relate to the franchise association? The board of the franchise association often considers it desirable to be represented in the franchise council. Not all franchisors share this view. In practice, such a representation only occurs once in a while. In this case there is a representation of the association, namely (a representation of) the board. This representation is then present in addition to the representative representation of the franchisees, in the form of the various other member-franchisees of the Franchise Council. All in all, a not always practically workable situation. It would be better to integrate both and to anticipate this in the franchise agreement. A practical solution is a mature franchise council, where all those subjects can come forward that can also be raised by the board of a franchise association. A good franchisor is therefore ahead of the problems outlined above.
In practice, the question often arises to what extent advice from a franchise council and/or decisions from the franchise association (of franchisees) are binding for all franchisees. This is only conceivable if this has been explicitly agreed in the franchise agreement. However, this is rarely the case. However, it is conceivable that, when it comes to promotional campaigns, for example, this is indeed taken into account when drawing up the franchise agreement, or that the possibilities of the franchise agreements provide for various guidelines, such as, for example, included in a handbook, which allow such practical operation at this point. If nothing has been arranged in this regard, this does not mean that in this example the franchisee is not obliged to cooperate in promotional campaigns, for example. As a franchisee, he is expected to cooperate at least to some extent in the franchise system made available. Usually such a general provision is also included in the franchise agreement. However, for this and other examples, proper regulations, included in the franchise agreement or in guidelines, whether or not incorporated in the handbook, must guarantee pleasant cooperation. It is of the utmost importance that at least a franchise council or, for example, an advertising committee is consulted on this matter, whereby the franchisor and franchisee must in any case strive for consensus.
Mr Th.R. Ludwig is a lawyer in Rotterdam. The law firm Ludwig & Van Dam is specialized in franchising.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Bankrupt because the franchisor refused to sell the franchise company – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The District Court of The Hague has dealt with a request from a franchisor to declare a franchisee bankrupt.
Prescribed shop fitting – dated January 28, 2020 – mr. AW Dolphin
The Midden-Nederland District Court has ruled on whether a franchisee is obliged to carry the shop fittings prescribed by the franchisor.
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.
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.
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.