Franchise agreements and horizontal cooperation
Franchise agreements are, by their nature, so-called vertical in nature. This means that there is a vertical cooperation between the franchisor, the one who makes the franchise formula available, and the franchisee, the one who exercises the franchise formula. This is generally seen as a collaboration between two different links in the supply chain.
In addition, we know of cooperation between competitors in practice. We call this horizontal cooperation. In terms of competition law, considerably less is allowed within a horizontal collaboration than in a vertical collaboration, based on regular franchise agreements. On the basis of a common franchise agreement, it is permitted to stipulate matters such as exclusive purchasing, price recommendation arrangements, non-competition clauses, etc. between franchisor and franchisee. All these arrangements are not or hardly permitted in the case of cooperation between competitors. In the case of a collaboration between competitors, one should think of a partnership of, for example, two or more greengrocers who jointly make agreements with regard to the subjects mentioned above. If these agreements take place on a joint, for example cooperative basis, the legislator only allows such cooperation to a very limited extent. This is completely different with a franchise relationship. The topics mentioned here can indeed be properly constructed on the basis of a franchise agreement between franchisor and franchisee. In practice, of course, there must actually be a vertical relationship: cooperation between competitors may not lead to an artificial franchise construction with the aim of stipulating vertically what is actually not possible horizontally.
When setting up a franchise construction, the parties are advised to carefully check in advance whether there is cooperation between the parties or whether there is a franchise concept actually made available by a franchisor. If the latter is the case, the way is open for a construction that is permissible under competition law, based on a common franchise agreement.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Column Franchise+ – mr. J. Sterk – “Franchisee does body check better than franchise check”
A gym embarks on a franchise concept that offers “Body Checks” and discounts to (potential) members in collaboration with health insurers.
Seminar Mrs. J. Sterk and M. Munnik – Thursday, November 2, 2017: “Important legal developments for franchisors”
Attorneys Jeroen Sterk and Maaike Munnik of Ludwig & Van Dam Advocaten will update you on the status of and developments surrounding the Dutch Franchise Code and the Acquisition Fraude Act.
Goodwill at end of franchise agreement
In a case before the Amsterdam Court of Appeal on 26 September 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:3900 (Seal & Go), a franchisee claimed compensation for goodwill (ex Article 7:308 of the Dutch Civil Code) after the
Article in Entrance: “Resignation”
Fire an employee who is not performing well? The subdistrict court is strict. If you, as an employer, cannot demonstrate that you have done everything yourself to make the person function better, it will be
Cost price that is too high as a hidden franchise fee
An interlocutory judgment of the District Court of The Hague dated 30 August 2017, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2017:10597 (Happy Nurse) shows that the court has considered the question whether the
Supermarket letter – 19
Coop liability for damages due to non-performance towards the franchisee