Looking ahead: Bottlenecks at the end of the franchise agreement
Of course, everyone starts a collaboration with good courage. But sooner or later it will come to an end. Most franchise agreements are concluded for a fixed period, usually 5 years. There may be dilemmas for both the franchisee and the franchisor whether to continue or to quit.
Some of those dilemmas include the following:
- A new “stricter” (model) of the franchise agreement;
- The obligation to reinvest;
- The possibility of buying/selling the company;
- The size of the purchase/sale of the company (including goodwill);
- The inability of the franchisee to continue under another formula;
These situations are explained successively.
Changes and requirements upon renewal of the franchise agreement
For example, if the collaboration is extended, it may be discussed to what extent, for example, higher fees for the franchisee also mean more or better services from the franchisor.
In the event of a reinvestment obligation, the question arises as to what the interest is and whether reinvestment could also be done in an alternative and cheaper way.
Considerations when selling a franchise business
When choosing at the end of the franchise agreement whether or not to sell the franchise company, the question is of course whether it is possible to sell at all. For example, what if the location is not available to someone else?
Sometimes it is also the case that the franchise business is run from its own building, but the building is not offered for sale, but only the assets. The possibility of a share transaction can also be considered.
The challenges of a post-compete agreement
Finally, in this context, mention can be made of the situation in which there is a post-competition clause, as a result of which a departing franchisee cannot continue the same type of business at the relevant location for a certain period of time under his own name or another formula.
The reality of legal dilemmas in franchise agreements
The franchise agreement often contains provisions regarding these dilemmas, but reality always proves to be more difficult than anticipated. In practice, it can sometimes be difficult to break through the dilemmas. For example, a franchisor will not like to see a successful franchisee leave, lose a location or pay a high price for the franchisee’s business and find a successor franchisee who will be just as successful (and is also willing or able to pay a high price for the franchisee’s business). takeover). On the other hand, a franchisee has often put his heart and soul into the company and, for example, has made investments that have not (yet) been fully recouped.
The importance of good preparation and clear agreements
In the context of such dilemmas, accusations and subsequent disputes often arise. What matters is that both parties know in advance where they stand, what they have agreed on and what they would like from each other. A franchisee in particular does not always list the different scenarios prior to concluding the franchise agreement. This is precisely what is highly recommended.
This article also appeared on the Franchise+ website .
Ludwig & Van Dam lawyers, franchise legal advice.
Do you want to respond? Then email to dolphijn@ludwigvandam.nl

Other messages
Damage estimate after wrongful termination of the franchise agreement by the franchisor
In a judgment of the Supreme Court of 15 September 2017, ECLI:NL:HR:2017:2372 (Franchisee/Coop), it was discussed that supermarket organization Coop had not complied with agreements, as a result of which the franchisee
Franchisor is obliged to extend the franchise agreement
On 6 September 2017, the Rotterdam District Court ruled, ECLI:NL:RBROT:2017:6975 (Misty / Bram Ladage), that the refusal to extend a franchise agreement by a franchisor
The (in)validity of a post-contractual non-competition clause in a franchise agreement: analogy with employment law?
On 5 September 2017, the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:4565, rendered a judgment on, among other things, the question of whether Bruna, as a franchisor, could invoke the prohibition for a
Column Franchise+ – mr. J Sterk: “Court orders fast food chain to extend franchise agreement
The case is set to begin this year. For years, the franchisee has been refusing to sign the new franchise agreement that was offered with renewal, as it would lead to a deterioration of his legal position
Not a valid non-compete clause for franchisee
On 18 November 2016, the interim relief judge of the Central Netherlands District Court, ECLI:NL:RBMNE:2016:7754, rendered a judgment in the issue concerning whether the franchisee was held
Franchise & Law No. 5 – Acquisition Fraud and Franchising Act
The Acquisition Fraud Act came into effect on 1 July 2016. This includes amendments to Section 6:194 of the Dutch Civil Code.



