Dissolution of the franchise agreement at the end of the franchise formula
Franchise agreement, dissolution
It often happens that a franchise formula ceases to exist. There may be various reasons for this. What often happens is that a franchise formula is taken over by another franchise formula in order to join forces and thus strengthen the market position. Such an acquisition can have a major impact on franchisees, as the franchisees of the acquired format are expected to honor their franchise agreement and – whether or not forced – to join the acquiring franchise format. Do the franchisees have to conform to their fate or do they have the option to choose their own course?
Prior to a franchisee’s decision to join a franchise formula, a franchisee often made many considerations, which ultimately led the franchisee to decide to opt for the relevant franchise formula and not for a competing franchise formula. This may be related to the culture or image of the formula, but also, for example, to the revenue model in combination with the floor space of the building in which the company is operated. Sometimes it is even just a matter of feeling or trusting a formula. The announcement by a franchisor that the formula to which the franchisees have committed themselves will cease to exist can also be a hard blow, especially if franchisees are requested to correctly and fully comply with the franchise agreement until the expiry date and to join the acquiring formula which may differ in many respects from the current formula.
Franchisees do not have to conform to their fate. There are options to dissolve the franchise agreement in such situations. A legally valid dissolution requires that there is default on the part of (in this case) the franchisor. The default generally only takes effect after the franchisor has been given notice of default by the franchisee and the franchisor has been given a reasonable period of time to take measures to bring the situation back into compliance with the franchise agreement. However, if it appears from communications from the franchisor that the franchise formula will cease to exist, a notice of default is not always required to allow the default to take effect. Franchisees who demand unaltered performance of the franchise agreement may, based on the law and jurisprudence, reasonably infer from such communications that the franchisor would fail to do so.
It is also required for a legally valid dissolution that it is sufficiently plausible that the franchisor has failed to fulfill one of the obligations under the franchise agreement. Implementing unilateral policy changes that are so far-reaching for franchisees can, according to case law, already lead to such a shortcoming. The fear of franchisees that the franchisor will make little or no effort to keep the formula in the market at the same level as before may then be justified. Compliance with the franchise agreement cannot therefore be required of franchisees in those cases.
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.