Possible pitfalls of a starting franchisee
Starting a business on the basis of “franchising” is in. This is not surprising, after all, as a starting entrepreneur, it certainly has a number of advantages to operate a company under a proven franchise concept. Below are seven points that, in my opinion, the aspiring franchisee should in any case take into account before working with a franchisor.
1. Is there a proven franchise concept? In other words, has the formula indeed proven itself in practice? If there is only a starting concept of a few months old, with a limited number of franchisees participating, the starting franchisee should be wary. In situations like this, I usually advise aspiring franchisees to have some solid conversations with potential fellow franchisees. This can be very enlightening.
2. Has proper – independent – market research been carried out from which it follows that the operation of the company is financially viable in the future? This is a very important point. If the franchisor, when asked, is not prepared to have such an investigation carried out at its expense, a healthy dose of suspicion is in order. In fact, in my view, a franchisee should not start without such an investigation. After all, the franchisee must have (some) insight into the expected results. In addition, the franchisee can hold the franchisor to account – if the results during the course of the journey are disappointing – the franchisor about the results of the market research.
3. It is also important that the franchise agreement includes the obligations of both the franchisor and the franchisee. There must be a balanced franchise agreement. Is the franchisor willing to take any suggestions from the franchisee into account, or is it “take it or leave it”? In short, the franchisee must be prevented from entering into a strangling contract, which only includes obligations for the franchisee.
Ludwig & Van Dam franchise attorneys, franchise legal advice

Other messages
NFV course for franchisees by mr. Th.R. Ludwig
NFV course for franchisees by mr. Th.R. Ludwig
Incorrect prognosis from Albert Heijn to ex-C1000 franchisee
On December 3, 2014, the District Court of the Northern Netherlands ruled on a dispute in which the attorneys of the Supermarkets section of Ludwig & Van Dam assisted a former C1000 entrepreneur
Supermarket letter – 8
Incorrect prognosis from Albert Heijn to ex-C1000 franchisee
Urgent interest in summary proceedings
In the event of legal disputes, it is possible to request the court to take provisional measures by means of summary proceedings.
Suspension of the fee by the franchisee is not in itself an automatic ground for suspension of goods deliveries by the franchisor
The court in Assen recently ruled that a franchisor had wrongly suspended the deliveries of goods.
Codification or self-regulation in the franchising sector
Codification or self-regulation in the franchising sector
