Horizontal and vertical cooperation

In practice, purchasing organisations, whether or not in the form of a cooperative, sometimes function – partly – as a sales organisation. In addition to purchasing, such an organization sometimes feels the need to further streamline matters such as the assortment to be carried by the members. This may give rise to the idea of ​​concluding a franchise agreement or similar contract with the members of the purchasing organisation. Can these two forms of cooperation coexist?

The Guidelines on Vertical Restraints accompanying the Block Exemption Regulation for Vertical Agreements make it known that an association of retailers may make use of the benefits offered by the exemption regulation. This means that, like a franchise organization, they can enter into vertical agreements with their members. Clauses regarding exclusive purchasing, but also non-competition, must then comply with the competition-related vertical requirements that also apply to a franchise organization. It is also important that there are no (further) agreements between the members that could hinder the conclusion of franchise agreements from a competition point of view. Examples include the division of exclusive areas: this too must take place vertically, ie on the basis of, for example, a franchise agreement or a comparable contract. However, if the members make (horizontal) agreements about, for example, exclusive areas, this is not allowed. When assessing whether a joint venture correctly applies both vertical and horizontal agreements, it must first be examined whether the cooperating partners have made mutually permissible agreements (horizontal assessment). If this is in order, then it can be examined how the collaboration has been designed vertically and whether this is in accordance with what is permissible from a competition point of view (vertical assessment).

In concrete terms, a purchasing organization can therefore conclude a franchise agreement with its members, which may include an exclusive purchase clause, for example. It is of eminent importance that the board of the purchasing association then actually presents itself as a “franchisor” and that it is not at all an intention to shape mutual agreements vertically, if these are not permitted horizontally, as is the case, for example, with publishing of exclusive areas.

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.

By Jeroen Sterk|02-11-2017|Categories: Forecasting issues, Franchise Agreements, Statements & current affairs|Tags: , |

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

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

Go to Top