Franchise council: necessity or wisdom?
When developing a franchise organization, the usefulness and necessity of a franchise council is invariably discussed. One of the first questions that comes to mind is whether a franchise council is mandatory. The answer is no. There is no legal rule that requires the franchisor and franchisee to establish a franchise council. However, the widely held view is that a franchise council is of course very useful. Such a council is usually set up when there are five and ten franchisees respectively. However, is it now necessary in that situation to actually move to a franchise council?
Not in itself. A franchise council is nothing more or less than a means of communication between the franchisor and franchisees. In a mature franchise council, ideas are exchanged on various topics such as purchasing, marketing, market development, etc. However, this consultation can also take place in another way. For example, (informal) consultation can take place on various topics with all franchisees together, or with a relevant part of them. This can take place in a form-free meeting. It is of course also possible to record this. It is primarily important that the franchisor and franchisee exchange ideas openly and that the parties express their concerns about their concerns. It is important that this opportunity is provided in all openness. If this happens, then strictly speaking it may not even be necessary to formally structure the consultation in the form of a franchise council. This also means that it is wise to set up a franchise council at some point. A good franchise council meets at least a few times a year. The sitting franchisees are ideally delegated by their own supporters, so that their contribution is made democratically. In practice, however, it is not always easy to find willing candidates and it is necessarily chosen that the franchisor itself recruits and appoints the candidates.
Spontaneous consultation can therefore fulfill the same function as a well-functioning franchise council. It is important that this is actually implemented regularly and that there is sufficient opportunity to do so.
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.