Mandatory franchise council?
Not in all cases does the franchise agreement contain a reference to the franchise council or a comparable body. Are franchisor and franchisee required to maintain such a council or similar body?
Strictly speaking, it is not necessary for a franchise council to be present. However, it is advisable to have proper and careful consultation in some way between franchisees and franchisor. There is more than one reason for this. A balanced franchise relationship is one of the elements that emphasize the independence of the franchisee, in order to prevent a disguised employer/employee relationship (fictitious employment). In that context, careful consultation about purchasing, marketing, training, etc. is of eminent importance. A good franchisor is therefore wise to set up and keep a mature franchise council alive. Ideally, the franchise council should be democratically composed.
Obviously, preventing a disguised employer/employee relationship is not the only, otherwise defensive, motive for setting up a franchise council or similar consultative body. After all, it is in the interest of all involved that proper consultation takes place on a regular basis on the above subjects, so that this can lead to improvements for the benefit of the entire franchise organization.
In addition, significant revisions of the franchise formula, for example consisting of a general restyling, accompanied by substantial investments, are simply unfeasible if there is not at least a consensus on this among the franchisees. In order to create this support, a franchise council is also very important in that context. In this way, everything can be carefully considered before individual coordination and agreement with the franchisees can take place.
Forms other than a franchise council can work just as well. It is important that a representative representation of the franchisees forms a serious discussion partner for the franchisor and that the advice and recommendations of the consultative body are of course taken to heart.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice
Other messages
Franchisee obliged to cooperate with formula change?
On 24 March 2017, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2017:1860, the preliminary relief judge of the Amsterdam District Court once again considered the issue in which Intertoys wishes to convert Bart Smit's stores
Delivery stop by franchisor not allowed
On 9 February 2017, the preliminary relief judge of the District Court of Gelderland, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2017:1372, ruled that a franchisor had not fulfilled its obligation to supply the franchisee
Alex Dolphijn in the Financial Dagblad about the judgment of the Supreme Court regarding Street-One
Franchisors more liable for incorrect forecasts Franchisees can now more easily hold their parent organization liable for incorrect profit and turnover forecasts.
Supermarket letter – 17
Supreme Court: More quickly liable for forecasts
Article in Entrance: “Small print”
“When I do business with a supplier, I never read the fine print. Recently I noticed that there are all kinds of things in it that I actually do not agree with.
Column Franchise+ – mr. Th.R. Ludwig: “Delivery stop by franchisor again not allowed”
Once again, the president in preliminary relief proceedings ruled on the question whether a franchisor's supply stop against the franchisee was permitted, with the franchisee paying a substantial