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
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?
Director’s liability of a franchisee after failing to rely on an unsound prognosis.
On 11 July 2017, the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch made a decision on whether the franchisor could successfully sue the director of a BV for non-compliance with the
Liability accountant for prepared prognosis?
In a judgment of the Court of Appeal of 's-Hertogenbosch of 11 July 2017, ECLI:NL:GHSHE:2017:3153, it was discussed that franchisees accused the franchisor's accountant of being liable
How far does the bank’s duty of care extend?
Some time ago the question was raised in case law what the position of the bank is in the triangular relationship franchisor – bank – franchisee.
Burden of proof reversal in forecasting as misleading advertising?
In an interlocutory judgment of 15 June 2017, the District Court of Zeeland-West-Brabant, ECLI:NL:RBZWB:2017:3833, ruled on a claim for (among other things) suspension of the non-compete clause.