Extension under “the then applicable conditions”
Many franchise agreements contain a franchise renewal clause that allows the franchisee to re-exercise the franchise for another five years, provided that the franchise agreement is accepted “on the terms then in force”.
Does this somewhat cryptic formulation constitute a license for a franchisor to unilaterally change the conditions, i.e. the content of the new franchise agreement, when the contract extension is up for discussion? By no means. It has been established in case law that a franchisor is certainly not free to freely change the conditions in the new franchise agreement in accordance with its own insight and policy in the event of a contract renewal. For example, if a higher fee is suddenly requested, this means that the option granted can in practice only be invoked under such additional conditions that this is more than the franchisee could expect. The conduct of the franchisor in question described here may then be unlawful.
Does this mean that a franchisor cannot change his franchise agreement at all in the event of a contract renewal if the above option is included in the franchise agreement? Not that either. The franchisor can indeed change and add to various subjects in the franchise agreement. However, it is important to reach consensus in advance with the existing franchisees, for example in consultation with the franchise council. In this way, surprises in the event of a contract extension for existing franchisees are eliminated in advance and a clear situation is created long before any contract extension that benefits everyone.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
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