Mr DL van Dam – Franchise lawyer 

A subject that is invariably included in the franchise agreement for both the franchisee and the franchisor concerns the franchise fees, often referred to as the franchise fee. In practice, various methods are used to determine the amount and basis of that fee. For example, the fee can be expressed as a percentage of turnover, as a percentage of the franchisee’s total purchases or as a fixed amount. The distinction between gross and net concepts can also often make a difference. 

In general it cannot be said that one calculation is “better” than the other. The method of calculating the fee is highly dependent on the sector. What might be considered perfectly reasonable and customary in one franchise organization could be considered totally unacceptable in another franchise organization. However, there is one greatest common denominator that can and should be used as a touchstone against all methods of fee calculation: the franchisee must, taking into account the entire financial structure of his company, also after full payment of his fee obligations towards the franchisor have sufficient margin. in order, firstly, to be able to meet its other obligations, and secondly, to be able to generate an entrepreneurial income that is customary and acceptable in the sector concerned.

In many cases, the criterion described above will already be discussed with the bank when applying for financing. The business plan to be submitted by the franchisee in that context will of course include the fee obligations. In that case, the bank will first verify whether these obligations are in accordance with the anticipated turnover and results of the company concerned. If the franchisor is a member of the Dutch Franchise Association, then that association will also have a critical eye on the fee obligations, in particular compared to what the franchise organization offers in return. Incidentally, a somewhat more diffuse subject is touched upon here: in practice, franchisees often complain that the franchisor’s package of services is not in accordance with the amount of the fee obligations. Of course, a problem can arise for a franchisor if it turns out that it does not comply with what has been agreed between the franchisee and the franchisor. However, if the franchisor adequately complies with the franchise agreement, then the principle of freedom of contract should be reverted to in the first instance. No law or rule of law precludes agreeing on a high fee obligation in the eyes of the franchisee involved.

Partly in light of the above, it is therefore so important for all parties involved to check in advance whether the fee obligations are in proper proportion to the financial structure in general of the franchise company, preferably before entering into a contract. If questions arise about this to the prospective franchisee, it stands to reason that he should submit this to his potential franchisor. At that time, in the absence of agreement on this point, it can still be decided not to enter into the agreement or to bring the fee obligations into line with the wishes of the franchisee. After signing, everything is considerably more nuanced. 

Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages

The manager (employee) who becomes a franchisee – fictitious employment?

On 14 December 2016, the subdistrict court judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2016:11031 (Employee/Espresso Lounge), considered the situation in which an employee

The Supreme Court sets strict requirements for franchise forecasts

A ruling by the Supreme Court on Friday casts a new light on the provision of profit and turnover forecasts to aspiring franchisees.

By Ludwig en van Dam|28-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , , |

Infringement of exclusive service area by franchisor in connection with formula change dated February 27, 2017

On 30 January 2017, the provisional relief judge of the District Court of Noord-Holland, ECLI:NL:RBNHO:2017:688 (Intertoys/franchisee), was asked how to deal with the

By Alex Dolphijn|27-02-2017|Categories: Dispute settlement, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

Forecasts at startup franchise formula

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal ruled on 14 February 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:455 (Tot Straks/franchisee) on the question whether the franchisor had provided an unsatisfactory prognosis and whether the

Mandatory transfer of franchise business to franchisor?

On January 23, 2017, the District Court of Amsterdam, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:412 (CoffeeCompany/Dam Spirit BV) rendered a judgment on the question whether a franchisee upon termination of the cooperation

Transfer customer data to franchisor

In its judgment of 10 January 2017, ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2017:68 (OnlineAccountants.nl), the Amsterdam Court ruled, among other things, on the question of how customer data should be transferred.

Go to Top